D-work innovation
Where, when and in which social context do good ideas evolve in the
distributed work environment of knowledge workers?
By
Anastasios Dimas
Dip.Arch. RIBA/ARB II
University of Westminster, 2006
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE
IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ARCHITECTURE STUDIES
AT THE
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SEPTEMBER 2009
© 2009 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
all rights reserved
Signature of Author:
Department of Architecture
August 14, 2009
Certified by:
Kent Larson
Principal Research Scientist, Department of Architecture
Thesis Supervisor
Accepted by:
Julian Beinart
Professor of Architecture
Chair of the Department Committee on Graduate Students
1
2
THESIS COMMITTEE
Kent Larson
Principal Research scientist, Department of Architecture
Thesis Supervisor
Dr. Terry W. Knight
Professor, Department of Architecture
Reader
William J. Mitchell
Professor, Department of Architecture and Media Arts and Sciences
Reader
3
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank all my colleagues from House_n Consortium. Special thanks go to: my
advisor, Kent Larson, for his guidance and support throughout my thesis; Jennifer Beaudin, for
her valuable help in my first steps with MyExperience; Clay Williams, for his contribution in
developing the bluetooth trigger; Fahd Albinali and Selene Mota, for their contributions and
valuable advice in setting up my algorithms and familiarizing me with Bluetooth technology;
Jon Froehlich for his support with MyExperience; and Stephen Intille for his contribution in the
initial development of the mobile phone survey.
I would also like to thank my colleagues from the Future Home Institute at the University of
Art and Design (TAIK) in Helsinki, Finland: Johanna Lappi, for helping me in setting up the
experiments, in the formulation of the phone survey and for providing continuous support
throughout the study; and Juha-Pekka Karinki, for his enthusiasm, dedication and contribution
in formulating the case study survey, the Pre-Study and Post-Study Questionnaires as well as
for translating data from Finnish to English.
Of course this study would not have been possible without Taivas’ people. I would like to
thank the management as well as the participants for making it happen.
I would also like to thank my readers, Prof Terry Knight and Prof Bill Mitchell for their
comments and remarks throughout my thesis.
I would like to show my appreciation to RHWL’s Principal Director Michael Clark and Associate
Director Martin West for allowing me to creatively explore my interests under their supervision
and for encouraging me to continue my education.
I am grateful to my diploma tutors, Steve Hardy and Andrei Martin for introducing me in the
world of architecture and technology.
I am indebted to my friend Stelios Dritsas for encouraging me to pursue a Master’s degree in
Design and Computation at MIT and for providing me with valuable insight about what lied
ahead of me.
I owe my deepest gratitude to my beloved parents, for being the instigators as well as the
providers of the best education I could possibly get. I would also like to show my deepest
appreciation to my uncle and aunt Panos and Charoula Dimas as well as my uncle and aunt
Takis and Aggeliki Perdikomatis for their support and encouragement.
Finally, I would like to thank my close friends for many countable years, Orestis Vantzos, Nikos
Dimitropoulos, George Kaperonis and Dimitris Skipis with whom we have had countless fruitful
conversations about life, the universe and everything.
5
D-work innovation
Where, when and in which social context do good ideas evolve in the
distributed work environment of knowledge workers?
By
Anastasios Dimas
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE
ON AUGUST 14, 2009 IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ARCHITECTURE STUDIES
ABSTRACT
The nature of work is changing. Until recently, the majority of people worked in fixed, teambased collaborations in collocated settings for fixed periods of time. Currently we are
experiencing a major shift towards distributed work. D-work is multi-tasking (workers
participate in many projects and teams that often change), multi-locational (work is conducted
by people located in different divisions, firms, organizations and time-zones) and mobile
(people conduct work while transiting).
D-Work changes the definition of the traditional office and blurs the boundaries between
home, workplace and the city. Homes will have to accommodate work, businesses must adapt
their policies and office spaces to D-work and cities have to adapt to new patterns of mixed
work-live units. At the moment, workers, managers and designers have become less aware of
where, when, with whom and during which activities, does the most productive and creative
work take place.
In an effort to tackle the abovementioned issue, we developed a methodology that combines
Context–Aware Experience Sampling with traditional ethnographic tools. Our system is
composed of a Bluetooth-based positioning system, a context-aware self-report survey
administered on mobile phones and traditional questionnaires. The methodology was tested
via a four week case study on innovation that was conducted in a marketing firm based in
Helsinki. During the study we collected data from eleven participants about the occurrence of
work-related ideas and barriers inside and outside the office space. All participants provided us
with information about their work habits by filling out a questionnaire prior to the beginning of
the study. By juxtaposing their answers to their actual work-life data that we collected,
similarities and discrepancies between the two emerged that helped us to understand and
assess their work behavior. General results as well as personal reports that were compiled for
three subjects are presented and analyzed. An overall assessment of the system and suggested
improvements based on results and participant feedback are also discussed.
Thesis Supervisor: Kent Larson
Title: Principal Research Scientist
6
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Facts on distributed work
D-Work implications and importance of study
Prior work
Methodology
Case Study: TAIVAS, Helsinki, Finland
Phone Survey
Employed System:
 MyExperience Software
 Bluetooth positioning system
Data analysis
Initial Results
Overall Results
Reports for Participants TAIK1, TAIK2 and TAIK3
Participant Feedback
Conclusions
Future work
p. 10
p. 12
p. 14
p. 15
p. 17
p. 18
p. 23
p. 25
p. 30
p. 31
p. 34
p. 48
p. 70
p. 72
p. 73
Appendix A – Pre-study Questionnaire
Appendix B – Participants’ Pre-study Questionnaire Answers
Appendix C – Consent Form
Appendix D – Participants’ Information and Teams’ Structure
Appendix E – Mobile Phone Survey
Appendix F – MyExperience XML Mobile Phone Survey Protocol
Appendix G – Taivas Beacon Map
Appendix H – Bluetooth Sensor for MyExperience
Appendix I – Taivas Bluetooth Beacon Look-up table
Appendix J – Participants’ Response Rates for Week 1
Appendix K – Participants’ data: Ideas, Barriers and Bluetooth Survey Results
Appendix L – Translation of Participant’s Activities
Appendix M – Post-study Questionnaire
Appendix N – Participants’ Post-study Questionnaire Answers
Appendix O – Phone Survey Diagrams
References
8
9
Facts on distributed work
The nature of work is changing. Until recently, the majority of people worked in fixed, teambased collaborations in collocated settings for fixed periods of time. However, we are currently
experiencing a major shift towards distributed work. This shift is the result of changes taking
place in the social context, location and execution time of work-related activities. In a
distributed work environment knowledge workers1 execute their tasks in more than one
location, during variable times of the day and even while transiting. As we can see in Figure 1
below, knowledge workers spend on average one third of their time at their main workplace
and another third at home, while the remaining work time is distributed across other office
spaces and third places (such as hotels, public spaces, cafes, vehicles, etc). As far as American
knowledge workers are concerned (estimated to be 134 millions), research has revealed that
they work on average at 3.4 different locations (see Figure 2) 2. As a result, collaborations are
not confined within the main office space but occur across different teams, divisions, firms and
organizations that are often distributed in different locations and time zones. The effect of this
collaboration from afar leads to the emergence of new kinds of organizations, quite often
virtual ones. Another important feature of distributed work is that of multi-tasking. The job
content of knowledge workers is demanding both cognitively and socially as around 50% of
their work includes thinking and creativity demands 3. More specifically, 40% of total working
time is solo work and involves tasks requiring concentration, while the remaining 60% is spent
in social interactions within a complex network consisting of team members, other colleagues,
managers, clients, family members, friends and others. To summarize, D-work is multilocational (work is conducted by people located in different divisions, firms, organizations),
mobile (people conduct work while transiting) and multi-tasking (workers participate in many
projects and teams that often change).
Figure 1 – Average distribution of knowledge workers’ weekly work time across various spaces4
1
A knowledge worker is a person employed due to his or her knowledge of a subject matter, rather than
their ability to perform manual labor.
2
Vartiainen and Hakonen and Koivisto, 2007
3
Vartiainen and Hakonen and Koivisto, 2007
4
Vartiainen and Hakonen and Koivisto, 2007
10
Home
Client's place
Once a month
Car
Once a week
Annualy
Train /Ariplane
Vacation
0
10
20
30
40
50
Figure 2 – Average distribution of work time across spaces for American knowledge workers
As location has become a minor constraint in the execution of work tasks, people are able to
choose more freely where to work. As a result, the boundaries between home and workplace
as well as between public and private spaces rapidly dissolve. As we mentioned, the physical
environments that employees use for working are divided into five categories: home, the main
workplace (“office”), moving places, e.g. cars, trains, planes and ships, a customer’s or partner’s
premises (other workplaces”) and hotels cafes etc (“third workplaces”). 5 According to Cooper et
al. (2002, p.295): “the decentralization of work activities and the practice of ‘assembling the
mobile office’ on the part of ‘nomadic workers’ entail the simultaneous management of private
activities, as when mobile teleworkers coordinate their work life from/at home. ‘Public’ work
activities may be drawn into ‘private’ spaces, with a variety of effects on an individual’s home
and family life (both positive and negative)”. This emerging distribution of activities across
various space typologies forces knowledge workers to constantly search for places to
concentrate and to share and socialize6. The overall effect of this search is an increasingly
complex work-life that presents itself as a challenge to be recognized and dealt with.
5
6
Andriessen and Vartiainen, 2006
Vartiainen and Hakonen and Koivisto, 2007
11
D-Work Implications and importance of study
Many studies have shown that the number of knowledge workers is rapidly growing 1.
Reducing operational and real estate costs, increasing economical outcomes, market
globalization, social needs (of customers and employees), new business ideas as well as
developments in mobile and wireless information and communication technologies (ICT), are
some of the driving forces behind the constant growth of distributed work. Various methods
have been employed to minimize the use of offices spaces in order to reduce cost, such as desk
sharing (staff losing their right to exclusive use of personal workspace), hoteling (workspace has
to be booked in advance), and the touchdown office (staff are allotted a workspace when they
arrive at the facility on a “first come – first serve” basis)2. These methods, in addition to the
ongoing globalization of businesses and their respective markets lead to the dispersion of
workforce, thus increasing the mobility of employees. Moreover, as customers’ demands
constantly increase with regard to the quality and diversity of offered products and services,
knowledge and knowhow have to be drawn from many different disciplines, in order to be
combined into appropriate (and often novel) customer solutions.
On the other hand, mobile technology acts as an enabler of distributed work. Wireless LAN,
Bluetooth piconets3 and 3G networks, along with the sheer ubiquity of laptops, PDAs and most
importantly mobile phones, allow knowledge workers to work anywhere and anytime they
choose, thus minimizing “dead time” and increasing productivity and financial gain. Quite often,
ideas become a driving force of D-Work. Strategic thoughts and theoretical constructs can act
as the instigators for developing new technologies to support them. This in its turn creates new
business opportunities4. Finally, social needs, as expressed by the needs and work habits of
workers and customers, become a decisive factor in the development and implementation of
mobile technologies and forms of business organizations.
1
Andriessen and Vartiainen, 2006
Lilischkis, 2003
3
A piconet is an ad-hoc computer network linking a user group of devices using Bluetooth technology
4
Andriessen and Vartiainen, 2006
2
12
The rapid growth of D-Work carries many implications with regard to the design of
workplaces, business policies and the development of technology and work tools. As we have
mentioned, distributed work changes the definition of the traditional office and blurs the
boundaries between home, workplace and the city. In the imminent future, homes will have to
accommodate work, businesses will have to adapt their office spaces to D-work and cities will
have to adapt to new patterns of mixed work-live units. New business policies and models will
have to be developed in order to deal with the challenges that D-Work brings up. Managers will
need to be able to manage their subordinates remotely and rely more upon results than upon
the supervision of employees’ behavior5. The ability to monitor and control the activities of
employees from afar raises concerns about the protection of their privacy that should be taken
into consideration in the formulation of management policies. Moreover, motivation and coordination of employees as well as social bonding will have to be at least partly accomplished in
ways other than face-to-face communication6. Finally, the quality and functionality of
technological infrastructure and tools will become one of the most important features of future
workplace.
One major implication of distributed work is that currently, workers, managers, and designers
have become less aware of where, when, with whom, and during which activities does the most
productive and creative work take place. This issue will be the main focus of our study. In order
to pursue such an exploration, we must understand the real needs as well as the work content
of distributed and mobile knowledge workers. This understanding can only be obtained by
studies embedded in actual practice and not in a laboratory environment. However, designers
currently lack the scalable tools to pursue a study of that kind. In his 2006 paper “Collaboration
in mobile virtual work: a human factors view”, Professor John R. Wilson stated the necessity for
a new methodology that would track interactions and behavior of distributed and co-located
office workers. One of his suggestions was based on direct observation; as he put it, “a richer
study would possibly require a distributed research team in a kind of mapping onto the focus
collaborating team studied, whereby each member of the work team is shadowed by a member
of the research team so the same events, communications and decisions can be observed from
the different points of view involved.” To this proposal we juxtapose an alternative research
methodology we developed, involving the use of Context-Aware Experience Sampling in parallel
with traditional ethnographic tools. A detailed description is included in the methodology
chapter.
5
6
Lilischkis, 2003
Vartiainen and Hakonen and Koivisto, 2007
13
Prior Work
Relevant research inferring location of human subjects via their proximity to distributed
Bluetooth devices within spaces has been conducted before. Bluetooth scans on a mobile
phone can identify other devices nearby, enabling the researcher to infer which people a
particular subject encountered during the day1. It has been shown that this is a powerful
technique to measure the social context of a mobile device.2 A similar kind of research has
looked at patterns of location of subjects over certain periods of time to deduce high-level
contexts such as "work" and "home".3 The most pertinent research, where Context-Aware
Experience Sampling was first employed, was a pilot study conducted by the MIT House_n
Research Group in collaboration with the WorkSpace Futures Group at Steelcase, Inc.4. Part of
this study was the initial development of tools for CAES (i.e. Smartphone software collaborating
with spatially distributed Bluetooth beacon devices). The work presented here is the first full
scale study using CAES in order to measure not only patterns of occupancy and collaboration
within office environments but their correlation to the process of ideation in knowledge
workers as well.
1
Raento et al. 2009
Davis, King et al., 2004
3
Eagle, 2005
4
Cheung, 2007
2
14
Methodology
As we aforementioned, our research methodology combines Context-Aware Experience
Sampling with traditional ethnographic tools (see Figure 1). Even though ethnographic tools are
valuable in behavioral studies, in complex situations such as the study of ideation and
innovation in distributed work environments, they are far from ideal. It has been shown that
questionnaires are inaccurate as people often cannot recall situations accurately (the
reconstruction of information from memory is not very reliable). Moreover, it is impossible to
capture mundane activity patterns and complex associations through them. On the other hand,
direct observation is capable to do that, however it is an expensive, invasive and timeconsuming methodology. Moreover, it is not mobile (it would be hard and anti-economical to
employ observers to track subjects outside the study environment), it is not scalable (it would
be very expensive and most probably unrealistic to directly observe large numbers of subjects)
and thus it can only be applied in a small sample. Finally, in-situ self-report procedures, such as
the diary method and the experience sampling method (ESM)1 are useful but are not aware of a
subject’s context (i.e. where and with whom the subject is, what kind of activities he is engaged
with and at what time of the day). Overall, traditional tools for collecting behavioral data
produce results that do not correlate well with real time empirical data regarding the same
behavior or events.
Figure 1 – Traditional ethnographic tools used in behavioral studies
In an effort to tackle the abovementioned issue, MIT’s House_n Consortium developed
Context-Aware Experience Sampling (CAES). Context-aware experience sampling improves
upon the experience sampling method by using sensor technologies to automatically detect
events that can trigger sampling and thereby data collection2. There are many advantages in
using CAES. First, compliance of participants can be assessed more accurately as researchers
can know exactly when a self-report was completed, how long the completion time was and if
answers were changed before survey completion3. Second, real-time collection of data enables
1
See Larson and Csikszentmihalyi, 1983
See http://web.mit.edu/caesproject/index.htm for more information
3
See Barrett and Barrett, 2001
2
15
researchers to start analyzing data right after the study begins, thus allowing them to make
adjustments to the survey’s content or to the conditions that trigger sampling. Third, as CAES
employs media capturing devices such as mobile phones, it allows study subjects to capture
images, audio and video of their situation to further support their answers. Fourth,
computerized self-reports have a more sophisticated structure than traditional questionnaires
as questions can be conditional (i.e. can depend on the subject’s answers to previous questions
or to other conditions specified by the researcher), of specific frequency (i.e. questions can be
asked a certain number of times per day or per event4), and randomized (in order to reduce
response bias). Finally, the collected data are formatted in a way that allows for immediate
computer-based analysis, thus eliminating the load of translating them into code.
In order to study productivity and the process of ideation in distributed work environments,
we developed a methodology that combines Context–Aware Experience Sampling with
traditional ethnographic tools (see Figure 2). Our system is composed of a Bluetooth-based
positioning system, a context-aware self-report survey administered on mobile phones,
traditional self-repot questionnaires and direct observation. The methodology was tested via a
four week case study on innovation that was conducted in Taivas, a marketing firm based in
Helsinki. During the study we collected data from eleven participants about the occurrence of
work-related ideas and barriers inside and outside the office space. Participants were
interrupted at specific times (according to their transitions across office spaces) and were asked
to record their activities, feelings, ideas, problems, social context and experiences in real time.
The mobile phone survey used psychometric scales, multiple-choice and open-ended questions
as well as image capturing in order to capture (and later assess) subjects’ conditions per place,
time and social context. Participants were unaware of when they would be queried and thus
acted “naturally”. The validity of this methodology is based on repetition, as behavioral
patterns are exposed over time. Moreover, participants provided us with information about
their work habits by filling out a questionnaire prior to the beginning of the study. Our aim was
to juxtapose their Pre-study questionnaire answers5 to our findings from direct observation and
the use of the CAES system, in order to expose similarities and discrepancies between their
actual work-life data and self-proclaimed habits. Detailed descriptions of the survey’s content
and the Bluetooth positioning system are included in the following chapter.
Figure 2 – Taivas case study research methodology
4
5
See Raento and Oulasvirta and Eagle, 2009
Please see Appendix B – Participants’ Pre-study Questionnaire Answers
16
Case Study: TAIVAS, Helsinki, Finland
The aim of the Taivas case study was to study where, when and in which social context do
good ideas evolve in the distributed work environment of knowledge workers. By being able to
track work-related ideas and problems and by finding and measuring patterns of occupancy,
mobility and collaboration within distributed work environments, we can gain a better
understanding of the real needs of knowledge workers, the content of their work and the
process of ideation and innovation within such environments. Moreover, by strategically
exposing those findings to management and employees alike, we could possibly increase
productivity levels as well as creativity in many ways. First, by providing employees with useful
feedback about their work-lives, we could help them make adjustments to their work-behavior
in order to improve their performance and work-life quality by helping them recognize areas of
potential improvement as well as problems that need to be tackled so as to bring balance in
their often entropic lifestyles. Second, by cross-referencing anonymized data of employees,
managers are allowed to review group dynamics and track significant incidents and measures at
various levels (i.e. across employees, teams or even larger business structures) in real time, thus
gaining a “global view” of the workplace. This could help them make more informed decisions
about business policies and personnel management. Finally, the results of the study could also
help designers assess if and how technology-enabled collaboration environments encourage
innovation, how ICT tools and new space typologies can support D-Work, as well as what the
future challenges with regard to office space design are.
During the four week case study we collected data from eleven participants belonging in
different disciplines. After signing a consent form1 and filling out the Pre-study questionnaire2,
each participant received a 3G GPS-enabled Samsung SGH-i617 Blackjack II Smartphone running
the Windows Mobile 6.0 operating system and the MyExperience application. Participants were
prompted by their phones to answer surveys while transiting between office spaces under
certain conditions (discussed later). Their phones (and thus movements) were tracked by
fourteen Bluetooth beacons developed by BLIPsystems and eleven other mobile phones that
were distributed across Taivas’ spaces. Participants also had the chance to record ideas and
barriers at their own initiative by pressing two buttons. The collected data were anonymized
and sent over to the House_n server on a daily basis via data plans offered by Elisa Network.
Image 1 – Taivas Headquarters
1
2
Please see Appendix C – Consent Form
Please see Appendix A – Pre-study Questionnaire
17
Phone survey
In order to study the complex concepts of productivity, ideation and innovation within
distributed work environments, we had to reduce them to simple quantitative components
which were easier to measure. For this reason we decided to study work and creativity as an
activity system3. In this view, work is a goal-driven system consisting of a subject using tools to
process objects of work within a working context. The aim of the system is to fulfill given or
self-set tasks. Image 2 below illustrates this concept. As a result, to understand the nature of
work and the process of ideation within work environments, it is only sensible to analyze the
following six perspectives: 1) what is done (type of task or activity); 2) by whom is it done (e.g.
by a single person or by a team, by a manager or an employee etc); 3) how is it done (i.e. what
kinds of tools used); 4) where is it done (e.g. at the office, at home, while transiting etc); 5)
when is it done (i.e. at what time of the day); 6) and most importantly, the relationships
between the variables (i.e. worker-task, worker-coworker, worker-environment etc). Our view
is in concert with psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi’s view that creativity is understood
better if examined from a systemic perspective, including the social and cultural context 4.
Moreover, it is broadly believed that innovation is also by nature a systemic phenomenon5.
At this point it is appropriate to make a clarification about the thesis title. In the Taivas case
study our effort was concentrated in capturing data about ideas (which are inventions) and not
specifically applied ideas (which are innovations). However, as most of the ideas that subjects
recorded throughout the study were to be eventually transformed into products or services and
since we monitored the advances and obstacles that appeared towards their realization within
the D-Work environment, we can safely claim that we implicitly studied innovation. According
to Osborn6, the process of innovation has three distinct stages. The first is fact finding, i.e. the
process of collecting data and information about whatever is needed to be done. The second is
idea finding, which is the exploration of possibilities, a process which is free from as many
constraints as possible. The last stage is solution finding, which is the development of promising
ideas into applied solutions. Thus, our study covers the first and second stages of innovation.
Image 2 – Work as a goal-driven system7
3
See Andriessen and Vartiainen, 2006
Bundy, 2002
5
Fagerberg, 2004
6
See Osborn, 1957
7
Andriessen and Vartiainen, 2006
4
18
Before we move on to discuss the survey’s design, we should briefly refer to the factors we
chose to track by explicitly asking subjects questions related to them. Even though it is probably
impossible to measure creativity, our research on the process of ideation, as well as our use of
common sense, made us realize that the most important indicators of creativity are access to
information, access to the right work tools, knowledge acquisition, social Interaction (i.e.
collaboration and exchange of ideas between knowledge workers), the physical and ambient
environment (i.e. comfort with regard to spaces, furniture, noise levels etc) and psychological
factors (such as stress). Other factors, such as routine, are not included above as they can be
inferred by answers to other questions that subjects were asked, as well as by examining sensor
data (for example, by tracking frequency of occupancy of spaces and transitions, as well as
repetitions in the detected social context of participants over long periods of time, routine
patterns could be revealed).
Let us now move on to the design of the survey. As far as the content and phrasing of the
questions were concerned, in many cases they were adapted to Finnish culture as well as to
Taivas’ internal business language. We have found that certain questions were thought to be
offensive or unclear by certain Taivas employees, whereas the same questions were thought to
be fine when asked during pilot studies conducted within House_n. Overall, the survey was
designed to be short; questions were asked in the simplest and shortest possible way (in one
short sentence). The vast majority of questions (25 out of 27) were either multiple or single
choice and thus quick to answer. Moreover, subjects were asked between five and twelve
questions per prompt (lasting between one and two minutes). Research has shown that the
ideal number of daily prompts is around eight8. However, as we wanted to obtain as much data
as possible, we did not explicitly set a maximum number of daily prompts. Finally, at any given
point during the survey, participants were allowed to exit the survey by letting it time out.
As we have already mentioned, the phone survey was either triggered by the transitions of
participants across office spaces, or was initiated by participants pressing either the “idea” or
the “barrier” button. These buttons were always apparent in the phone’s experience sampling
software interface (i.e. MyExperience’s interface) and allowed subjects to record ideas and
problems whenever these occurred. Regardless of the triggering origin, the survey was
structured in two parts. Between the first and the second part, a “continue” option was
inserted. The first part would cover the basic questions (where subjects were when out of
Taivas, if they were engaged in activities alone or not, with whom they were with and what
were they doing). If the participant would choose to continue to the second part of the survey,
then according to his answers in the first part and a sophisticated randomization technique, he
would be directed to either the “social interaction” or the “spatial” branch. The spatial branch
asked subjects questions with regard to their spatial transitions and preferences, whereas the
social interaction branch about their collaboration and encounters with others. To enhance
user participation, an incentive in the form of a small award was employed. Every time
participants completed surveys, either self-initiated or Bluetooth-triggered, either partially or
fully, they gained one point. At the end of each week, the participant with the highest score
would receive a bottle of wine. Overall, we structured the phone survey in a way that meaning
could be extracted by the participants’ answers. To see the full survey please go to Appendix E.
8
Mota, 2006
19
The process of formulating the mobile phone survey was one of the most difficult parts in the
study. Given the constraints of time and the mobile phone’s screen size, in order to ask subjects
the right questions and in the right way and order, the survey passed through many iterations.
The images below show snapshots of various survey versions. The first version was tested via
paper prototyping (see Image 5) which proved to be a valuable method for gaining insight
about what the survey’s content and structure should be. To see some of the phone survey
diagrams in order to visually compare their structures, please go to Appendix O.
Image 3 – Phone survey diagram samples of version 1
20
21
Image 4 – Phone survey diagram samples of version 4 (Final version)
22
Image 5 – Paper prototype of the phone survey
MyExperience software
MyExperience is an open source context-aware experience sampling application developed in
C# for Windows Mobile devices using .NET CF 2 and Microsoft SQL Compact Edition. As a
mobile data collection platform, MyExperience has been designed to record a wide range of
data including sensors, images, video, audio and user surveys. MyExperience is based on a
three-tier architecture of sensors, triggers and actions; triggers use sensor event data to
conditionally launch actions. One novel aspect of MyExperience is that its behavior and user
interface are specified via XML and a lightweight scripting language similar to the
HTML/JavaScript paradigm on the web9. Image 6 (next page) illustrates the architecture of
MyExperience as revealed in the structure of the XML protocol. Image 7 illustrates the overall
data collection system architecture. Data were collected and time-stamped via MyExperience,
recorded to an SQL database in the mobile phone and sent to the House_n Server. Even though
MyExperience has many built-in sensors, we had to develop our own Bluetooth sensor10.
9
Please visit http://myexperience.sourceforge.net/ for more information
Please see Appendix H – Bluetooth Sensor for MyExperience
10
23
Image 6 – MyExperience XML protocol sample and structure
Image 7 – Data collection system architecture
24
Bluetootht positioning system
As we have mentioned, participants were prompted by their phones to answer surveys while
transiting between office spaces. Fourteen Bluetooth beacons developed by BLIPsystems and
eleven other mobile phones (Nokia and Samsung) that had their Bluetooth devices on (and thus
acted as supplementary beacons) were distributed across Taivas’ spaces. Images 8 and 9 show a
BLIPSystem beacon as is and as was installed within Taivas. Each participant was carrying a
Samsung SGH-i617 Blackjack II Smartphone that had its Bluetooth device on and was running
our MyExperience protocol. In this way, participants’ phones were detected by the beacons as
soon as the participants were located within their range. In the Bluetooth trigger that we
developed within MyExperience (which was based on the Bluetooth sensor that we also
developed), we used the condition that participants would be prompted by their mobile phone
to answer the survey every time they changed location within Taivas, as long as they spent a
minimum time span of ten minutes in their previous location. In the case of the cafeteria space
that was located on the third floor, the time span was adjusted to two minutes since our direct
observation showed that most employees would only make brief visits to that space. Image 10
illustrates this trigger condition.
Image 8 – Class II Bluetooth beacon
Image 9 – Bluetooth beacon placed in Taivas
Image 10 – Trigger condition for prompts based on participants’ transitions within Taivas
25
Both the BLIPsystem beacons and the mobile phones that we used as beacons are Class II
Bluetooth devices, meaning that they have an effective range of approximately ten meters.
Thus, if they are deployed within a small space, or at high density within larger spaces,
significant signal overlap will occur. In this case, an accurate positioning of participants based
on which Bluetooth beacons their mobile phones are able to “see” at that specific moment will
be prevented. Research has shown that variation in Bluetooth networks is unpredictable due to
environmental noise11. Noise is epressed as the appearance of non-study related Bluetooth
devices that take up a large portion of the number of allowed detected devices per scan, as well
as signal reflections from study related devices caused by the presence of metal surfaces within
the study area, as well as signal absorption and distortion due to the presence and movement
of people. Thus, Bluetooth-based detection of nearby devices (and thus subjects) is inherently
stochastic12. In order to minimize the signal overlap we did the following: first, we placed the
beacons in boxes wrapped in aluminum foil so that part of the signal would be forced to reflect
inwards; second, we created a Bluetooth map of Taivas by scanning for Bluetooth devices at
many different locations over a three day period. The recordings were analyzed and
combinations of detected Bluetooth beacons per location were ranked according to the
frequency of their occurrence. Then, we assigned each space a Room ID (for example desk 1
equals RoomID 1) and to each Room ID a number of specific Bluetooth beacon combinations,
thus creating a location look-up table. Images 11 and 12 illustrate this process.
Image 11 – Bluetooth signal sampling over a three day period leads to a mapping of space
required to formulate a look-up table
11
12
See Cheung and Intille and Larson, 2007
Raento and Oulasvirta and Eagle, 2009
26
Bluetooth beacons: B1, B2, B3, B4, B5 -Locations: L1=meeting room1, L2 = entrance,
L3=meeting room, L4=desk space, L5=corridor
B/L
MATRIX L1
L1
L2
L2
L3
L4
L4
B1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
B2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
B3
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
B4
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
B5
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
BC*L Matrix: Number of unique beacon combinations detected per location
L5
1
0
1
0
0
L5
1
0
0
0
0
Image 12 – The process of formulating a look-up table.
As we can see from Image 13 (next page), Taivas headquarters are mainly located in a vast
unified open-plan space. Given the lack of physical boundaries, in order to study the transitions
of participants across spaces, we decided to divide the floor plan into rooms by strategically
distributing the Bluetooth beacons. Open-plan spaces present a greater challenge for Bluetooth
positioning systems than partially or fully enclosed spaces as signal overlap and reflection
become more frequent and intense, thus lowering the chances of formulating a concrete lookup table. Image 13 shows the desk locations of the case study participants, the division of the
floor plan into rooms, the ID that was assigned to each room, as well as the way we distributed
Bluetooth beacons within Taivas. For more information about the formulation of the look-up
table, please see Appendix I.
27
Image 13 – Division of spaces, location of participants and Bluetooth beacons
28
Image 14 – Captured images of the phone survey interface
29
Data Analysis
Data analysis is presented in three consecutive parts. In the first part, we go through the
initial results of the case study, covering the compliance rate of subjects, survey completion
time, conditions used for the triggering of surveys and adjustments that were made in our
algorithms while reviewing participants’ data sets during the first week of the study. In the
second part we analyze in more detail the overall case study results, covering the occurrence of
ideas and barriers with regard to location, time, social context and corresponding recorded
activities for each participant as well as per occupation type. In the third and final part, we
present personal reports for participants TAIK1, TAIK2 and TAIK3. Those three participants were
selected because they worked close to each other, allowing us to study not only group
dynamics (who interacts with whom and in what ways), but also test more exhaustively the
validity of our employed methodology via the analysis of Bluetooth scan recordings. The reports
cover in detail subjects’ behavior and survey answers during their participation in the study
which are then juxtaposed to their Pre-study Questionnaire responses in order to expose
agreements and possible discrepancies between the two. Summarized results are provided in
the end of parts two and three.
30
Initial Results
Number of Bluetooth Survey Prompts for
Week 1
The Taivas case study was conducted in two consecutive phases. In both phases we used the
same mobile phone survey and generic MyExperience configuration (i.e. sensors, triggers, and
actions). In the first phase (May 25th – June 10th) we used the condition that participants would
be prompted by their mobile phone to answer the survey every time they changed location
within Taivas, as long as they spent a minimum time span of ten minutes in their previous
location. In the case of the cafeteria space that was located on the third floor, the time span
was adjusted to two minutes since our direct observation showed that most employees would
only make brief visits to that space (lasting under five minutes on average). Given this
configuration and a highly mobile participant (one who changes location every ten minutes),
our protocol allowed for a maximum of five prompts per hour for most locations (not the cafe).
Our direct observation for participants TAIK1 and TAIK2 showed that their average work day in
Taivas would last between eight and twelve hours, thus bounding the maximum number of
possible daily prompts between forty and sixty. By extrapolating this observation to the rest of
the participant group we could expect to observe a maximum average of forty prompts per day.
However, we did not expect participants to change location that frequently, simply because it
would allow them no time for conducting most office related work tasks. Thus, we empirically
estimated that daily prompts should appear to be between eight and twenty per day.
As was abovementioned, participants’ data were sent over to the House_n server daily for
monitoring purposes, in order to make sure that participants’ interactions with MyExperience
were as expected. Figure 1 shows the total number of survey prompts per subject for week 1.
280
270
260
250
240
230
220
210
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
TAIK1 TAIK2 TAIK3 TAIK4 TAIK5 TAIK6 TAIK7 TAIK8 TAIK9 TAIK10 TAIK11
Participant ID
Completed Bluetooth surveys
Timed out surveys
Figure 1 – Participants’ survey compliance for week 1
31
Our review of the data recorded during the first five days of the study, as shown above,
revealed that the average number of daily survey prompts was 22.51, a bit over our empirically
established maximum. The high frequency of prompts made us look into the dataset more
closely. Our review revealed that for certain participants, such as “TAIK5”, the Bluetooth trigger
algorithm was sometimes unable to detect the pre-defined combinations of Bluetooth beacons
contained in the look-up table that assign a room ID to each space, thus erroneously
mislocating the participant to being outside of Taivas for short periods of time (for two or three
scan cycles or a minute on average). By detecting a known Bluetooth beacon combination after
such an incident, the algorithm would assign a Room ID to the participant (that of his current
location) and would erroneously prompt him to answer a survey, believing that the participant
had returned to Taivas. As we have already said, Bluetooth based detection of nearby devices is
innately stochastic due to signal overlap and environmental noise. However, through an
analysis of the unique beacon combinations that were recorded in each space over the first
week period, we were able to optimize our look up table and filter out most of these
mislocations. In other cases where participants were situated in adjacent desk spaces, the
algorithm would detect Bluetooth beacon combinations that were assigned to the spaces next
to the participants’ current location, forcing the algorithm to erroneously assume that a
transition across desks had occurred and to thus prompt the participant. These cases of high
participant proximity were impossible to resolve. Yet, by cross–checking the Room ID assigned
to the participants’ location by the Bluetooth algorithm to the participants’ answers with regard
to their location (i.e. being at their desk space or not), we were able to determine a frequency
of occurrence for this incidents that should be taken into account in a statistical analysis.
Going back to Figure 1, the average percentage of answered Bluetooth surveys was 22%,
meaning that in four out of five prompts the participant chose not to comply, either by not
finishing answering the first part of the survey, or by letting the survey to time out without
answering any question at all. Of course, had the participants been prompted less often, we
would have seen a higher relative response rate. Still, in absolute measures, participants’
response rates were quite good, providing us with four completed bluetooth surveys per day on
average, one out of which (or 25%) covered the second part of the survey as well (see Figure 2).
These answers do not include participant-initiated surveys (i.e. the recordings of ideas and
barriers – discussed later). As expected though, participants’ response rates dropped after the
first week, reaching one response per day towards the end of the study. Figure 3 shows the
average daily response rate for week1. There we see a peak forming in the middle of the week
with regard to the number of survey prompts and completed surveys, followed by a significant
drop on Friday. This makes sense as most employees leave earlier on Friday after the weekly
wine session that takes place at 3pm.
Survey completion time (from survey notification sound to displaying the end message) was
also examined. Surveys in which the subjects decided to stop after the continue option lasted
one minute on average whereas the vast majority of fully-completed surveys (i.e. those
covering either the spatial or the social interaction branch as well) lasted two minutes on
average. However there were atypical occasions were the participants spent seven, ten or even
twenty minutes to complete the full survey.
1
Please see Appendix J: Participants’ Response Rates for Week 1 for more information
32
Total Number of Answered Bluetooth
Surveys for Week 1
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Participant ID
Not-Continued Bluetooth surveys
Continued Bluetooth surveys
Figure 2 – Continued and not-Continued Bluetooth surveys per participant (week 1)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Monday
Tuesday
Number of Prompts
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Answered Bluetooth Surveys
Figure 3 – Average daily response rate for week 1
In the second phase of the study (June 10th – June 18th) we decided to minimize the number of
daily prompts significantly. Thus we added to our Bluetooth trigger algorithm the condition that
once the participant answered a survey (either Bluetooth-triggered or participant-initiated) he
wouldn’t be prompted again for forty five minutes regardless of his transitions. This minimized
the maximum number of daily prompts to eight and the daily response rate to one or two.
33
Overall Results
Total Number of Completed Surveys
During the four week case study three hundred Bluetooth-triggered surveys were answered
and fifty five ideas and forty two barriers were recorded, thus providing us with a total of three
hundred and ninety seven completed surveys. In ninety nine surveys the participants chose to
reply “yes” to the continue option, thus yielding a percentage of continued surveys of 25%.
Figure 4 below shows the total number of completed surveys and the ratio of continued to notcontinued surveys per participant. Participants TAIK2 and TAIK9 stand out as the first one never
chose to continue to the second part of the mobile phone survey and the second one had a
ratio of continued to not-continued surveys of 0.51, i.e. more than twice the average.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Participant ID
Continued surveys
Not-Continued surveys
Figure 4 – Continued and not-Continued surveys per participant
Moving on, we will briefly juxtapose the number of unique activities recorded by each subject
over the duration of the study. By choosing to include open-ended questions in the mobile
phone survey, we ensured that we would get far richer data sets with regard to participants’
activities than if we had used multiple choice questions. The extra amount of information
proved quite helpful in the interpretation of answers to various other questions as we will see
in the qualitative reports that are to follow. However, in order to make quantitative
comparisons with regard to recorded activities across subjects, we had to translate each
recorded activity to a more generic one. 2 For example, reported activities such as “drawing” or
“visual designing” were translated simply to designing. In many cases however, the task of
translating activities into more generic types was quite daunting. For example, activities such as
“planning a pitch”, “planning and briefing”, “designing a website” and “planning and designing
webpage” were translated to “designing” since some kind of design skill is required in order to
conduct the tasks. However, this labeling process might occasionally lead to
2
Please see Appendix K: Participants’ data: Ideas, Barriers and Bluetooth Survey Results
34
misinterpretations of work situations as it strips off valuable qualitative information. However
such a process was necessary in order to establish a common language with regard to reported
activities so as to compare daily richness of activities across participants and juxtapose it to
occurrences of ideas as well as to try and find structures on a daily and weekly level with regard
to repetition and duration of activities. For reasons of economy, we will juxtapose daily
distribution of activities in the qualitative reports that are to follow for participants TAIK1,
TAIK2 AND TAIK3. Figure 5 below shows the number of unique recorded activities per
participant. One interesting observation is that participants TAIK3 and TAIK11, who recorded
the highest number of unique activities during the case study (after their translation), also
recorded the highest numbers of ideas and barriers; still, no correlation can be made at this
point.
Number of Unique Recorded
Activities
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Participant ID
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Recorded ideas - interacting
with others
TAIK10
TAIK11
TAIK4
TAIK5
TAIK6
TAIK7
TAIK8
TAIK9
Recorded ideas - being
alone
TAIK1
TAIK2
TAIK3
Number of Recorded Ideas
Figure 5 – Unique recorded activities per participant
Participant ID
Figure 6 – Recorded ideas and social context
35
Let us now look into the occurrence of ideas with regard to social context. As we can see in
Figure 6 (previous page) all participants apart from TAIK11 recorded having more ideas while
being engaged in activities alone. A detailed break down of the participants’ social context at
the occurrences and recordings of ideas can be seen in Figure 7 below. As expected, in most
cases where the participants reported having an idea while being engaged in activities with
others, they were with team members. An interesting observation is that participant TAIK6
(who along with participants TAIK5 and TAIK9 form a team) reported having ideas only when
being alone, whereas her team members reported having ideas mostly when working as a
team. This implies a different degree and possibly type of collaboration between TAIK6 and her
team members that could be further investigated by a juxtaposition of their activities during
the case study, meaning that by comparing activity types across team members we could
possibly check if TAIK6 has a role within the team that does not demand a lot of interaction
with other team members. However, such a comparison is beyond the scope of our study. In
the case of the team formed by participants TAIK7 and TAIK8 results where as expected, as
both participants reported a strong interaction between them, as shown by their idea
recordings, that was confirmed by their phones’ Bluetooth scans (i.e. participant TAIK8 was
often in proximity to TAIK 7 and vice versa). Finally, participant TAIK11 recorded most of her
ideas when engaged in activities with clients.
Number of Recorded IDeas
6
5
Other
4
Clients
3
Friends
2
Family members
1
Colleague(s) outside my
team
0
Team members
Participant ID
Figure 7 – Recorded ideas while engaged in activities with others
As far as the timing of ideas is concerned our data showed that the vast majority of ideas
were reported to occur in the morning hours (see Figure 8). There were no recordings of ideas
after 5pm. This shows that most participants were not using their phones to record ideas and
barriers while they were at home, even though they had them switched on (as shown by their
Bluetooth scans). The same goes for the use of the phones over the weekend. No participant
recorded any event during weekends. Of course if the case study phones were given to
36
Number of Recorded Ideas
participants to use them as their primary phones, the results would be quite different as the
chances of the participants forgetting to switch them on, or charge them or leaving them
behind purposefully or by accident for both short and long periods of time would be minimized.
16
14
12
10
Night
8
6
Evening
4
Afternoon
2
Noon
0
Morning
Participant ID
Figure 8 – Time of the day when ideas were recorded
16
14
12
10
In Public Space
8
In Transit
6
Restaurant/Bar/Cafe
4
Home
2
Other Workplace
TAIK11
TAIK10
TAIK9
TAIK8
TAIK7
TAIK6
TAIK5
TAIK4
TAIK3
TAIK2
0
TAIK1
Number of Recorded Ideas
Since most participants were not using their mobile phones while being out of the office,
most ideas and barriers were recorded to arise within Taivas. Only participants TAIK2, TAIK3,
TAIK4 and TAIK11 reported having ideas in locations other than Taivas (shown in Figure 9
below); out of those four, only subjects TAIK2 and TAIK3 had a significant percentage of
recorded ideas occurring outside the office space. A detailed analysis of reported ideas in the
spaces within Taivas is included in the participants’ reports.
Taivas
Participant ID
Figure 9 – Locations where ideas were recorded
37
Number of Recorded Ideas
An interesting part of the study would be to compare the amount of recorded ideas and
barriers across professions. However, as the study group was quite diverse with regard to
occupation, no significant groupings were able to be made. Figure 10 shows the number of
recorded ideas juxtaposed to the occupation type of each participant. Because there are only
three types of professions that have at least two representatives (designer, graphic designer
and art director), we can only make comparisons among those. Apparently, designers reported
the largest number of ideas, followed by art directors and graphic designers.
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Figure 10 – Recorded ideas per participants’ occupation type.
Before we conclude our analysis of idea-related data it would be necessary to examine how
often participants were able to describe their ideas in detail. By deciding to continue to the
second part of the survey after pressing the idea button, the participants would often be
directed to describe their ideas in more detail. The chance of this happening was 50%, as the
10
Diverted to Social / Spatial
Branches
8
Times being unable to
describe ideas
6
4
Times being able to
describe ideas - picture
taken
2
0
TAIK1
TAIK2
TAIK3
TAIK4
TAIK5
TAIK6
TAIK7
TAIK8
TAIK9
TAIK10
TAIK11
Number of Recorded Ideas that
participants tried to explain in
detail
12
Times being able to
describe ideas - described
in words
Participant ID
Figure 11 – Recorded ideas that participants tried to explain in detail
38
Number of Recorded Barriers
spatial and social interaction branches had a 25% chance each to show up due to
randomization. As a result, when the participants were willing to provide us with more
information about the situations that led to the creation of their ideas, they only had a 50%
chance to do so. As we explained in the mobile phone survey subchapter, the randomization
technique in the second part of the survey (i.e. after the continue option), was employed for
reasons of economy and we were aware that some idea and barrier-related data would be
missed. Figure 11 (previous page) shows the total number of recorded ideas per participant
where the participant tried to explain the type of the idea as well as the circumstances that led
to its generation. Out of the total eleven participants, only six chose to provide us with more
information about these incidents. The diagram exposes the randomization effect as
participants TAIK3, TAIK9 and TAIK11 were diverted twice to either the social interaction or
spatial survey branch. Still, even in the cases where participants were directed to the idea
branch, they were unable to describe ideas either in words or by taking a picture with the
exception of participant TAIK3. We cannot deduct whether this inability to provide descriptions
was due to participants’ reluctance (as it would take up more of their time) or due to the
elusive nature of the ideas that occurred to them.
Following, we will examine barrier-related data, again starting by looking at social context. By
looking at Figure 12 It is obvious that most participants reported facing barriers in their work
related tasks while being alone. Only subjects TAIK1 and TAIK9 reported having more problems
with regard to their work activities while they where engaged in activities with others.
Participant TAIK9 however also reported having more ideas when engaged in activities with
others, thus we can assume that he was often engaged in activities with others. As TAIK9 is a
director (Art Director), such an assumption is quite sensible since he would often be required to
provide directions and resolve team-related issues and it was proved to be so by his phone’s
Bluetooth scans. Another valuable observation is that participants TAIK3 and TAIK11, who
reported having the highest number of barriers, also reported having the highest number of
ideas which is due to their overall excellent compliance rate (see TAIK3’s compliance rate in his
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Recorded Barriers interacting with others
Recorded Barriers - being
alone
Participant ID
Figure 12 – Recorded barriers and social context
39
personal report). A noteworthy fact is that in most cases where participants reported facing a
barrier while being engaged in activities with others, they were with colleagues outside their
team, as shown in Figure 13. In the remaining cases they were with team members, while only
two participants reported barriers while working with their boss. In general, fewer barriers than
ideas were recorded during the course of the study while participants TAIK4, TAIK6 and TAIK8
recorded no barriers. A final significant finding was that quite often participants reported being
productive when they recorded facing a barrier.
6
Number of Recorded Barriers
Alone
5
Other
4
Clients
3
Friends
2
Family members
1
Boss
0
Colleague(s) outside my
team
Team members
Participant ID
Figure 13 – Recorded barriers while engaged in activities with others
By examining the time when subjects reported facing barriers we saw that the vast majority of
barriers were reported to arise in the morning hours (see Figure 14). There were no recordings
of barriers after 5pm. Moreover, as in the case of the recorded ideas, no barriers were reported
over the weekend. This fact should be taken into consideration in future studies as it would be
preferable to give participants study phones to use as their primary phones in order to capture
more work related activities while out of the office and during the weekend.
Our analysis of the locations where participants reported facing work–related problems
shows that once more, these occurred within Taivas. Only participants TAIK2 and TAIK3
reported facing problems in locations other than Taivas (at home, in transit and in a cafe) as
shown in Figure 15. Unlike the recordings of ideas, no subject had a significant percentage of
recorded barriers occurring outside the office space. A detailed analysis of the barriers reported
in the spaces within Taivas is included in the participants’ reports that are to follow.
40
Number of Recorded Barriers
12
10
8
Night
6
Evening
4
Afternoon
2
Noon
0
Morning
Participant ID
Number of Recorded Barriers
Figure 14 – Time of the day when barriers were recorded
12
10
8
In Public Space
6
In Transit
4
Restaurant/Bar/Cafe
2
Home
Other Workplace
0
Taivas
Participant ID
Figure 15 – Locations where barriers were recorded
At this point we should briefly refer to the types of barriers that participants reported facing
during the four week case study. However, before we do that, it will be useful to review how
often participants were able to describe the problems they faced in detail. By deciding to
continue to the second part of the survey after pressing the barrier button, participants would
often be directed to describe their barriers in more detail. Again, the chance of this happening
was 50%, due to the aforementioned randomization that was inserted in the survey’s structure.
As we can see in Figure 16, participants were more often directed to the spatial and social
interaction survey branches than when they tried to explain ideas in detail. This is certainly due
to the less number of recorded barriers (than ideas), as randomization works out evenly (i.e.
within the planned percentages) only after a significant amount of prompts. Even though the
41
12
Diverted to Social / Spatial
Branches
10
8
Times being unable to
describe barriers
6
4
Times being able to
describe barriers - picture
taken
2
TAIK11
TAIK10
TAIK9
TAIK8
TAIK7
TAIK6
TAIK5
TAIK4
TAIK3
TAIK2
0
TAIK1
Number of Recorded Barriers
recorded number of barriers for which subjects chose to provide us with more contextual
information about is almost equal to that of ideas (twenty two and twenty respectively),
subjects were more often able to describe the problems they faced. This is due to the structure
of the survey3, as subjects had to choose the type of the barrier out of a predefined multiple
choice list. Unfortunately, such a list of predefined ideas is impossible to compile, that is why
we had to use an open-ended question for their description.
Times being able to
describe barriers described in words
Participant ID
Figure 16 – Recorded barriers that participants tried to explain in detail
4
3
2
1
0
TAIK1 TAIK2 TAIK3 TAIK4 TAIK5 TAIK6 TAIK7 TAIK8 TAIK9 TAIK10 TAIK11
Equipment Failure
Missing information
Person unavailable
Tired / Bad mood
Conflict with colleague
Poor Air quality
Lack of Focus
Too much work or stress
Figure 17 – Types of recorded barriers per participant
3
Please see Appendix E: Mobile Phone Survey
42
As mentioned above, we will briefly refer to the reported types of barriers. Figure 17 shows
what kind of problems each individual faced during the course of the study. Unfortunately, we
were not able to retrieve any useful information about the problems that participants TAIK7
and TAIK9 have reported; still we were able to draw some conclusions. Subjects reported
explicitly most of their problems by selecting them from the predefined barrier list. However, in
the cases of “Conflict with colleague”, “Lack of focus” and “Poor Air quality” which were not
included in our list, (as such a list can never be all-inclusive), the nature of the barrier was
defined implicitly via other answers the participants provided us with. As we can see,
equipment failure and missing information were the most often reported problems. The only
problem that was related to ambient spatial characteristics was that of poor air quality,
reported by participant TAIK11 while working at her desk space on the second floor.
It would be useful now to juxtapose the types of barriers to profession. Such juxtaposition
could reveal not only the kinds of activities that participants were often engaged with, but also
provides us with insight about potential areas of improvement. As we can see from Figure 18
below, designers reported equipment failures and missing information, a fact that should be
taken into consideration by Taivas management as an upgrade of work-related equipment and
information services might be required. Reported conflicts with colleagues should also be
considered by managers, as a restructuring of the teams might be needed. With regard to
spatial characteristics, the issue of poor air quality should be tackled, especially if shown to be
persistent.
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
0
Equipment Failure
Missing information
Person unavailable
Tired / Bad mood
Conflict with colleague
Poor Air quality
Lack of Focus
Too much work or stress
Figure 18 – Types of recorded barriers per participants’ occupation type
So far we have examined ideas and barriers separately. In the following diagrams we jointly
demonstrate the recordings of ideas and barriers with regard to location, time and social
context. The conclusions that can be drawn by reviewing these diagrams have already been
43
Number of Recordings
mentioned; this juxtaposition is for illustrating our findings in a more clear way. Figure 19
shows the number or recorded ideas and barriers per participant. As we can see, the
emergence of ideas and barriers across subjects follows no evident pattern as the ratio of ideas
to barriers per participant is extremely variable. When we look at the aggregate number of
ideas and barriers per location though, we see that most incidents were recorded within Taivas,
while only a few were recorded at home, in other workplaces, in transit and in third places (see
Figure 20). We have already mentioned that if participants were using the study phones as their
primary mobile phones, we would probably see a more even distribution of recorded incidents
across spaces. We should also keep this information in mind when reviewing the aggregate
number of recorded ideas and barriers per social context, shown in Figure 21. Again, the office
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Participant ID
Recorded Ideas
Recorded Barriers
Number ofRecordings
Figure 19 – Recorded ideas and barriers per participant
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Recorded Ideas
Recorded Barriers
Figure 20 – Aggregate number of recorded ideas and barriers per location
44
Number of Recordings
environment is dominant, as we see that most ideas where recorded when participants were
working with team members and most barriers when participants were working with
colleagues who did not belong in their team (we have excluded that fact that the vast majority
of ideas and barriers were recorded while subjects were working alone for comparative
reasons). In Figure 22 another aforementioned pattern is revealed; recordings of ideas and
barriers were at their peak in the morning (6am to 12pm), diminishing towards the evening.
However, as the way we had divided the workday into time zones was too coarse, we decided
to divide it at two hour intervals (starting at 4am and ending at 6pm). The results are visualized
in Figure 23. The diagram clearly shows that the number of recorded ideas was higher from
6am to 8 am and from 12pm to 2pm, whereas the maximum number of barriers was recorded
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Recorded Ideas
Recorded Barriers
Number of Recordings
Figure 21 – Aggregate number of recorded ideas and barriers per social context
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Morning
Noon
Recorded Ideas
Afternoon
Evening
Night
Recorded Barriers
Figure 22 – Aggregate number of recorded ideas and barriers per time of day
45
Number of Recordings
between 8am and 10 am. By fitting polynomial curves of sixth degree to our data points we
smoothed out the results, as shown in Figure 24. Of course, if we used polynomials of different
degree (e.g. fifth or fourth) we would get slightly different fits, but since we are not interested
in making predictions about the occurrence of ideas and barriers later on during the day (we
should use a method other than polynomial fitting for such a task), the choice of polynomial
degree is not that important.
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
4am 6am
6am 8am
8am 10am
Recorded Ideas
10am 12pm
12pm 2pm
2pm 4pm
4pm 6pm
Recorded Barriers
Number of Recordings
Figure 23 – Time of day when ideas and barriers were recorded
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
4am 6am
6am 8am
8am 10am
10am 12pm
12pm 2pm
2pm 4pm
4pm 6pm
Recorded Ideas
Recorded Barriers
Polynomial fit (Recorded Ideas)
Polymial fit (Recorded Barriers)
Figure 24 – Polynomial interpolation of the time of day when ideas and barriers were recorded
Before we conclude our analysis it is necessary to go over the reasons for which participants
chose to be or work within specific spaces. Table 1 (next page) shows why participants changed
locations within Taivas. A review of the table shows us explicitly participants’ personal needs
46
with regard to work tools, social context and spatial characteristics and at the same time, in an
implicit way, the diversity of tasks that each participant had to go through during the study. For
example, subject TAIK3, who reported the highest number of ideas, the second highest number
of barriers, the highest number of unique recorded activities and the highest number of social
interactions at the occurrence of ideas and barriers, also reported the highest amount of work –
related needs that resulted in a high number of transitions within the office space (discussed
later). Of course, we have already mentioned that participant TAIK3 is a record holder due to
his ideal compliance rate throughout the study, a fact that should be included as a factor in
statistical inference. In order to learn more about participant’s reasons for spatial transitions
however, we should examine the transition patterns of each individual. For reasons of economy
we will only do that in the qualitative reports for participants TAIK1, TAIK2 and TAIK3.
Participant ID /
Spatial choice
It was my normal
workspace
TAIK1
x
TAIK2
TAIK3
TAIK4
TAIK5
TAIK6
TAIK7
TAIK8
TAIK9
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
It was near/available
Needed bigger space
Needed presentation/
work tools
x
x
x
Needed access to info
Needed more privacy
Needed to be around
others
Needed a change/stimuli
Other
TAIK10
TAIK11
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Table 1 – Reasons for spatial transitions per participant
Summary
As we have seen, most ideas were recorded during the morning while participants were
working alone in Taivas. Designers reported having the highest number of ideas as a group.
Whenever participants reported ideas while engaged in activities with others they were most
often with team members. In almost every recording of their coming up with an idea,
participants were unable to describe it in words. As far as barriers are concerned, again their
majority was recorded during morning hours while participants were working alone in Taivas. In
most cases where the participants reported facing a barrier while being engaged in activities
with others, they were with colleagues outside their team. A noteworthy observation was that
subjects were able to describe barriers more often than ideas, due to the structure of the
questions. Equipment failure and missing information were the most often recorded barriers.
Another significant finding was that participants often reported being productive when they
were facing barriers. Generally, less barriers than ideas were reported. No comparisons were
made with regard to gender or age since the number of male participants was higher than that
of female (seven and four respectively) and since nine out of eleven subjects belonged in the
same age group (between thirty and forty years old).
47
Reports for Participants TAIK1, TAIK2 and TAIK3
Participant TAIK1
Participant “TAIK1” is a thirty four year old designer, holds a University Arts degree and has
been working for Taivas for two years. “TAIK1” is not a member of a specific team, however he
occasionally works with participants “TAIK2” and “TAIK3”. During the four day period that he
participated in the study, (he had to leave Taivas due to family matters after this period) he
recorded four ideas, three barriers and answered ten Bluetooth-triggered surveys out of the
total eighty eight prompts he received, thus providing us with seventeen complete surveys.
Figure 25 below shows his daily compliance rate during week 1.
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Monday
Tuesday
Number of Prompts
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Answered Bluetooth Surveys
Figure 25 – Daily response rate for week 1
The first idea was reported by participant “TAIK1” on the second day of the study at 10:50 am,
while having coffee alone in a small lounge area located near his desk, (RoomID 13 - see Image
13 Case Study Chapter) and his recorded activity was “thinking”. His second idea was recorded
on the third day of the study at 1:08 pm, while he was listening to a soundtrack at his desk
space with one of his team members and his recorded activity was “listening to top gun
soundtrack”. His phone’s Bluetooth scans show that participant “TAIK3” was within range and
since they occasionally work together, we can assume that “TAIK1” was with “TAIK3” at the
time. When we reviewed participant’s “TAIK3” dataset we found that “TAIK3” reported the
same activity at the same time and at the presence of “TAIK1”, thus turning our assumption
into a fact. His third and fourth ideas were recorded on the fourth day of the study at 8:36 am
and 9:02 am respectively. His first idea for the day was recorded while he was searching the
web at the presence of two of his colleagues who did not belong in his team in the desk space
next to his (RoomID 14) and his recorded activity was “web search”. Indeed, the Bluetooth
scans of his mobile phone showed that participants “TAIK2” and “TAIK3” were not within range
at that specific time. The participant chose to provide us with more information about his idea
at this point. He stated that this idea was “small”, not related to a client brief (and thus not part
48
of a work-related problem solving process), that he had just got the idea and that other people
where “somewhat important” in helping him coming up with it. However, he stated that he was
unable to capture the situation that led to this idea. His second idea for the day was recorded
almost half an hour later, while he was drawing alone at his desk space and his recorded
activity was “drawing”. Once again, the participant chose to provide us with more information
about the generation of his idea. He stated that his idea was “big”, not related to a client brief
(and thus not goal-driven), that he had he hasn’t been working on this idea for a long time and
that other people where somewhat important in helping him coming up with it. However, he
was still unable to capture the situation that led to this idea, neither in words nor by taking a
picture.
The similarities in the participant’s answers for the third and fourth idea, as well as the short
period of time that intervened between their recordings, suggest that there is a good
probability that the participant was referring to the same idea, an idea that started as “small”
and half an hour later developed to “big”. As his initial activity was web searching in the
presence of others, we can assume that during this time an accumulation of information and
possibly an informal brainstorming occurred, followed by a short incubation period. The second
activity of “drawing”, during which the participant was potentially re-working his original small
idea, could be part of a reflective thinking process, an act of re-evaluation that possibly led him
to the development of his “big” idea. For this reason, we feel that the addition of a question in
the survey’s “Idea branch”, along the lines of “was this idea related to your last recorded
idea?”, or “Was this idea: a) development of an existing idea b) brand new idea”, would be
quite useful to assess connectivity and propagation of ideas.
As was aforementioned, participant “TAIK1” recorded three barriers over a four day period.
His first barrier was recorded on the first day of the study at 8:42 am, while being at his desk
space, (RoomID 16) at the presence of two of his colleagues who did not belong in his team and
his recorded activities were “trying to think” and “listening to advices”. The Bluetooth scans of
his mobile phone showed that participants “TAIK2” and “TAIK3” were within range at that
specific time, although we can not deduct that those were the colleagues the participant
referred to. His activity of “listening to advices” in the presence of two colleagues, was also
recorded by a Bluetooth survey that was triggered by a micro–transition across desks thirty
minutes later.
The second barrier was recorded on the third day of the study at 7:14 am, while he was alone
at his desk space and his recorded activities were “trying to find info” and “looking for an
environment change”. The participant chose to provide us with more information about his
barrier at this point. He stated that this barrier was related to “equipment failure”, that he was
“somewhat” frustrated and when asked to capture the situation he wrote “what to do when
you would need to have calm to do some research and you don't have proper equipment to
work!”. In a Bluetooth survey that was triggered by his transition into an unknown space
(meaning the participant was out of the beacons’ range) and then back to his desk space ten
minutes later (7:24), the participant, when asked about his activities, stated “trying to work but
no proper equipment!”. We can deduct from the facts above that indeed the participant
changed location as he was “looking for an environment change”, possibly seeking to find
information, however his search was not fruitful as he kept complaining about missing or failing
equipment. Since the participant has been working in Taivas for around two years, we would
49
assume he would be well aware of the tools offered to him as well as their potential failures
and thus we could claim that he would be able to bypass equipment failures and come up with
solutions quickly; yet incidents such as the above challenge this claim.
The participant’s third barrier was recorded on the fourth day of the study at 9:25 am at the
presence of two of his colleagues who did not belong to his team, while being in a desk space
next to his (RoomID 15) and his recorded activity was “too much hassle”. In the Bluetoothtriggered survey that followed his transition back to his desk, six minutes after he recorded his
barrier, the participant stated that he was alone and stressed. Even though the participant
chose not to provide us with more information about this barrier, we can assume that whatever
the reason that prevented him from carrying out his activities was, it had a lasting effect.
Following an analysis of the participant’s transitions as recorded by his phone’s Bluetooth
scans, we saw that the participant spent most of his time in his desk space and in desk spaces
nearby, yielding a high micro-mobility (desk-to-desk) to macro-mobility (floor-to-floor /spaceto-space) ratio. There were no recordings of him in the second floor meeting rooms, or any
visits to the third floor cafeteria and only in two occasions he was located at the lounge area
nearby his desk. All of his ideas and barriers were recorded while he was at the office and
according to his phone’s Bluetooth scans we can safely assume that he never had the phone on
while out of the office. This prevents us from drawing any conclusions with regard to his workrelated activities while outside Taivas. In two occasions, his ideas occurred at the presence of
others (one team member and two not-team members respectively), whereas in the other two
he was alone. Most of his ideas were recorded during early morning hours while at his desk
space or in spaces close by. Two out of his three recorded barriers occurred at the presence of
others (not-team members), one while he was alone and all of them were recorded during early
morning hours. His meetings with others involved team members (three times), his boss (once)
and colleagues outside his team (four times). Only one of his meetings with a team member
was “accidental” however it was recorded to be “essential” for carrying out his activities.
Overall, “TAIK1” recorded thirteen unique (translated) activities over his participation period
(see sample in Figure 26). He often reported thinking or trying to think, as well as talking,
listening and drawing. It is interesting that in two occasions, when asked about his activities he
stated “too much hassle” and “stress”, implicitly recording his feelings instead of his activities.
3
2
1
0
day1
day2
thinking
trying to focus
having coffee
looking for an environment change
listening to music
talking
stressing
day3
day4
listening to someone
drawing
searching information
trying to work
taking pictures
too much hassle
50
Figure 26 – Daily activities distribution for participant TAIK1 during week 1
Let us now juxtapose our findings to the data that participant “TAIK1” provided us with in the
Pre-study Questionnaire (see Appendix A). In the question “Where do you prefer to work when
you are trying to come up with ideas?” the participant answered “Taivas”, which completely
agrees with our findings. In the question “At Taivas, are there places that you prefer to use for
creative thinking”, the participant answered that he had “no specific preference as long as
there is a sofa where you can sit and exchange ideas with people”. His answer slightly agrees
with our data since in three occasions out of four, he was either at his desk space or in desks
near by and only once at the small lounge area near his desk, where he stated that he was
“having coffee”(RoomID 13). His recorded activities of “drawing”, “listening to top gun
soundtrack” and “web-searching”, during which he recorded having an idea, were most likely
conducted at his desk space, since our direct observations showed that Taivas employees
mostly use their desks and desktops for these types of activities and they use the lounge area
(RoomID 11) either for relaxing, or for brief meetings. Still, all of his ideas were recorded in the
area covered by rooms 13, 14, 15 and 16, showing that the subject has a preference towards
this area.
In the question “When during the day do you think you usually get the best ideas?” the
participant answered “Afternoon”. This completely opposes our data, since all of his ideas
where recorded before or around lunchtime (at 10:50 am, 1:08 pm, 8:36 am, and 9:02 am). Of
course, had “TAIK1” participated in the study for the entire four week period, we might have
detected a different pattern than the current one. In the following question, “When during the
week do you think you usually get the best ideas?”, the participant answered “The weekend”.
As we have no weekend data for the specific participant, we can not assess his claim. For the
following question, “Do you think you have (more or) better ideas while working with others or
alone?”, “TAIK1” answered “With others”. Our data mostly agree with this claim since in two
out of four idea recordings the subject was in the presence of others and as we can assume that
his fourth idea (where he recorded being alone) was the development of his third idea (where
he recorded being with others) then in three out of four cases his ideas occurred while at the
presence of others. In the next question, “With whom you usually work when trying to come up
with ideas? (Pick all that apply.)”, the participant chose all options. Indeed our data show that
some of his ideas occurred in the presence of team members and colleagues outside his team.
In the following section the participant provided answers with regard to his choices. More
specifically, in the question “If you prefer to work alone, what is the most important reason for
this?”, the participant replied “For a change”. The subject explicitly stated once that he was
looking for an environment change, but never for a change in his social context. As the subject
never chose to answer any spatial-related questions, we can not assess his claim. In the next
question “If you prefer to work with others, what is the most important reason for this?", the
participant answered “To have the expertise of others available if needed”. Indeed, we
recorded two occasions (in the reporting of a barrier and a subsequent Bluetooth-triggered
survey) where the participant stated that he was “listening to advice” and another two
occasions where he was “talking”. The participant recorded being in the presence of others
eight times, six out of which we can safely assume that he was working with them. Out of those
six, in four occasions he was either talking or listening, meaning that indeed he often discussed
about his work and was seeking advice from his co-workers.
51
When “TAIK1” was asked “Are there some activities that you think are especially good for you
to create ideas? Could you name a few?”, he answered “no special activity, just need to feel no
pressure”. Even though we were not able to detect a pattern revealing a specific type of activity
during which ideas occurred, his activities of “drawing”, “listening to top gun soundtrack”,
“having coffee” and “thinking”, suggest that the participant was most probably in a relaxed
state, even though he chose not to explicitly record his stress levels for these occasions. In the
following question the subject was asked “Can you say what usually hinders you to get ideas?
(Pick 3 most important ones.)”. His answers were “Missing information”, “Too much work or
stress” and “Too little time to complete the task”. His answers totally agree with our data, as
the barriers he recorded were related to “trying to find info”, an “equipment failure” that
possibly prevented him from obtaining the information he was after and “too much hassle”
followed by “stress”. In the following question “TAIK1” was asked “What do you think would
contribute more to your having more or better ideas? (Rank them, 1 = most important)” the
participant answered in ranked order “Better access to information”, “More time per project”,
“More interaction with others”, “Different workspace configuration” and “Better equipment”.
We can assume from the collected data that the participant indeed values access to
information the most, as his barriers were related to missing information, or to equipment
failure that prevented him from obtaining information. His recording of “too much hassle” as a
barrier also certifies that he also values more time per project a lot.
The next set of questions covers participants’ preferences with regard to work-space. When
asked “What is the most important spatial quality for you?”, “TAIK1” answered “Comfortable
furniture”. Even though the participant chose not to provide us with spatial-related
information, we can juxtapose his answer with his statement about idea-generation spaces,
where he stated that he has “no specific preference as long as there is a sofa where you can sit
and exchange ideas with people”, along with the fact that one of his ideas was recorded while
sitting in the small lounge area close to his desk space. In the following question “Why might
you choose another place than your work station to work in? (Rank them, 1 = most important)”,
his ranked answers were “For privacy”, “For certain equipment”, “For a change”, “For
company” and “For a larger working area”. Our data partially agree with his claims, since the
participant’s micro mobility pattern reveals that he did not visit any of the more private work
spaces during the study, however he spent a lot of time in his desk-space and in two occasions
his transitions were due to his seeking equipment in order to obtain information. In the next
part, the participant was asked “What kind of shared system do you use the most?”. His answer
in this case was “Work table”. This agrees with our data since in the recorded occasions where
he was not using his desktop pc (as when he was web-searching for example), his activity was
“drawing”. There was no data of him using a projector, or a wall space or white board. In the
following question, the subject was asked “What are the attributes of personal work space you
would like to have? (Rank them, 1 = most important)”. His answers were “Privacy”, “Lots of
room”, “Quiet”, “Everything at hand” and “People around”. Once again, judging by the
participant’s answers we deduct that he values privacy the most and since he spent quite a bit
of time at his desk space (three out of four of his ideas where recorded while at his desk space
or desks near by), we assume that his personal work space satisfies his demands; this could be
the reason why he did not visit any of the more private work spaces.
52
In the following question the participant was asked “What kind of shared space would you like
to have? (Rank them, 1 = most important) and his reply was “Room for projects”, “Privacy for
meetings” and “Equipment always at hand”. Since we have no spatial-related data with regard
to use of shared spaces in the presence of others, we can not assess his claim. Moving on, the
participant was asked “For what activities do you need a particular kind of space? (Rank them, 1
= most important)” and his ranked answers were “Brainstorming”, “Sketching”, “Relaxation”,
“Socializing” and “Presenting”. Our data somewhat agree with the participant’s answers. As we
aforementioned, the participant was in the presence of others eight times (out of the total
seventeen surveys he completed) and we can safely assume that in six occasions he was
working with them. In four out of those six occasions, he was either talking or listening to
someone else talking (giving him advice). Additionally, he recorded one of his ideas while
listening to music with one of his team members (TAIK3), so there is a good probability that an
informal conversation / brainstorming took place at that time between the two participants.
Thus, we have recorded five possible conversations occurring mostly at his desk space (RoomID
16) or in a desk space near by (RoomID 14). This implies that “TAIK1” indeed prefers to have
work-related conversations and possibly brain-storming sessions in a relatively confined area.
However, we would expect this area to be the small lounge close to his desk (RoomID 13), as
the participant stated earlier that he would prefer a space where “…there is a sofa where you
can sit and exchange ideas with people”. Still, there were no recordings of him interacting with
others in the lounge area. There was only one occurrence of him being in the lounge alone,
having coffee and thinking (where one of his ideas was recorded). We can assume that “TAIK1”
uses this lounge as his relaxation space, but we would need more data to confirm. However,
the phone survey data as well as our direct observation show that he prefers to sketch at his
desk.
The following and last set of questions from the pre-study questionnaire that all participants
had to fill in asks questions about the idea generation process, and the effects of routine and
deadlines in their work-life. In the statement “Usually I follow a standard methodology to come
up with ideas.”, the participant replied “disagree a lot”. It is true that in all four occasions where
he recorded having an idea, his social context and activity combinations were unique. The
participant reported having ideas while being alone, (two times), with one other person who
was a team member (once) and with two or more persons that were not part of his team
(once). His recorded activities when the ideas occurred to him where drawing, listening to
music, thinking / having coffee and web-searching. Even though the size of his data set is too
small to allow us to make assumptions, there is definitely no evident pattern implying a
methodology.
The next statement that the subject had to assess was “Usually I get my best ideas when I
have scheduled my activities in advance.”. To this statement the participant answered “Agree”.
We are aware at this point that the participant does not feel comfortable or creative when
under stress or when handling too many tasks at the same time, as was revealed in two of his
recordings (of a barrier and a subsequent Bluetooth-triggered survey) and according to his own
statement that he needs “to feel no pressure” in order to come up with ideas. Moreover, via
the nature of the recorded activities he was involved with when he came up with his ideas, (e.g.
having coffee, listening to music etc), we deducted earlier on that his ideas occurred while
being in a relaxed state. Still, we have no explicit data with regard to the participant’s
53
scheduling and how well he manages to keep up with it. For this reason, we feel that the
addition of a question in the phone survey that would provide us with feedback about a
worker’s workload management skills would be beneficial, as it could be correlated with
recorded stress levels.
In the next question, the participant had to evaluate the role of routine in his performance.
When presented with the statement “I perform better while following a daily office routine”,
“TAIK1” replied “Disagree a lot”. Our data agree with his claim, at least as far as the idea
generation process is concerned, since we were not able to detect a pattern within this process.
We were only able to detect a pattern with regard to the time and place of the occurrence of
ideas (early hours / area covered by rooms 13,14,15 and 16), however, when juxtaposed to the
participant’s overall mobility (the participant spent all of his time in the aforementioned rooms)
as well as the hours when he was using the phone within the office, no routine pattern can
safely be established. However, in a future study, we could perhaps learn more about a
worker’s daily routine by not only examining the time and frequency of occurrence of specific
activities through out a day or a week, as we did in this study, but also by getting participants’
feedback with regard to the scheduling of their daily activities and their degree of commitment
to it. In the last question, “TAIK1” was asked to asses the effect of task deadlines. In the
statement, “I perform better when I have some kind of deadline.”, the participant’s answer was
“Agree”. As we have no recordings of the participant facing a deadline during the case study
period, we are unable to assess his answer.
Data Analysis Summary for participant “TAIK1”
During the four day study period, the participant recorded four ideas (see Figure 28), three
barriers and answered ten Bluetooth-triggered surveys out of the total eighty eight prompts he
received, thus providing us with seventeen complete surveys. He recorded being with others
eight times and six out of those he was most probably working with them. His meetings with
others involved team members (three times), his boss (once) and colleagues outside his team
(four times). Only one of his meetings with a team member was “accidental” however it was
recorded to be “essential” for carrying out his activities.
Thirteen unique (translated) activities were reported. He was often thinking or trying to think
or focus, as well as talking, listening and drawing (see Figure 27). It is interesting that in two
occasions, when asked about his activities he stated “too much hassle” and “stress”, implicitly
recording his feelings instead of work-related activities. The participant spent most of his time
in his desk space and in desk spaces near by, yielding a high micro-mobility (desk-to-desk) to
macro-mobility (floor-to-floor /space-to-space) ratio. There were no recordings of him in the
second floor meeting rooms, or any visits to the third floor cafeteria and only in two occasions
he was located at the lounge area near by his desk. All of his ideas and barriers were recorded
while he was at the office and according to his phone’s Bluetooth scans we can safely assume
that he never had the phone on while out of the office.
Most of his ideas and barriers were recorded during early morning hours and not during the
afternoon as he stated, while being at his desk space or spaces near by. Beyond that, no other
pattern became apparent with regard to his work habits. The participant stated that most of his
54
ideas occur to him during the weekend, yet we have no data to assess this statement. He has
more or better ideas while working with others, which somehow agrees with our data, and he
relies on the advice and expertise of his co-workers. Access to information, feeling no stress,
privacy and comfortable furniture are valuable to him and were confirmed to be so by the
phone survey data. He prefers to work at Taivas and has no specific space or methodology, nor
specific kinds of activities during which ideas occur to him. He dislikes routine and often
changes his location, social context and his work tasks.
5
Number of Activity Occurrences
thinking
listening to someone
4
trying to focus
drawing
3
having coffee
searching information
looking for an environment change
2
trying to work
listening to music
1
taking pictures
talking
0
Activity Type
too much hassle
Figure 27 – Aggregate unique recorded activities for participant TAIK1 during week 1
55
Personal Other Desk Meeting
Desk space
space
room
Early
Morning
alone
with team
member(s)
with other
colleague(s)
with boss
with clients
with friends
with family
Morning
alone
with team
member(s)
with other
colleague(s)
with boss
with clients
with friends
with family
Noon
alone
with team
member(s)
with other
colleague(s)
with boss
with clients
with friends
with family
Printer
Room
Lounge
Taivas café
Other
workplace
Home
Public
Space
Restaurant In Transit
/Bar/Cafe
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Afternoon alone
with team
member(s)
with other
colleague(s)
with boss
with clients
with friends
with family
Figure 28 – Location, time and social context of ideas and barriers recorded by participant TAIK1
*Green cells represent ideas while red barriers
*Numbers within cells indicate the number of recordings for the specific combination
56
Participant TAIK2
Participant “TAIK2” is a forty year old male online design manager, holds vocational
qualifications in business administration and information technology and has been working for
Taivas for ten years. “TAIK2” works occasionally as a team with “TAIK3”, and they both
occasionally work with participant “TAIK1”. During the case study period he recorded two ideas,
seven barriers and answered seventy seven Bluetooth-triggered surveys, thus providing us with
eighty six complete surveys. Figure 29 below shows his daily compliance rate during week 1.
Even though we have analyzed the entire four-week datasets for participants TAIK2 and TAIK3,
we have chosen to illustrate their compliance rate and daily activities distribution only for week
1 in order to be able to compare them to those of participant TAIK1.
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Monday
Tuesday
Number of Prompts
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Answered Bluetooth Surveys
Figure 29 – Daily response rate for week 1
“TAIK2”’s first idea was recorded on the second day of the study at 4:07 am, while working at
home with two or more of his family members present and his recorded activity was “planning
site designs”. Even though the participant chose not to provide us with more information about
his idea, it is interesting that he recorded two barriers while working alone at home, thirty
minutes before he pressed the idea button (at 3:42 am and 3:48 am respectively), so we can
assume that his recording of the idea signifies his coming up with a solution to the problem that
made him work so early in the morning. His second and last recorded idea occurred to him on
the fourth day of the study at 7:29 am, while he was working alone at his desk space in Taivas
(RoomID 16) and his recorded activity was “web optimizing”. Once more, the participant did
not provide us with any more information about his idea. It is noteworthy the fact that in all of
his recordings, the participant never chose to continue to the second part of the phone survey,
unlike any other case study participant. The effect of this behavior was that we ended up
having a “poor” dataset for the specific participant and we feel that, for future studies, more
consideration should be put in the strategic placement of the “continue” option within the
phone survey, if such an option should be included at all.
57
Moving on to the participant’s barrier recordings, it is noteworthy that his first two barrier
surveys that were recorded on the first day of the study, were not completed. Our assumption
is that the participant was trying to familiarize himself with the phone’s interface. The third
barrier was recorded on the first day of the study at 1:27 pm, while he was designing alone at
his desk space and his recorded activity was “ui-designing” (i.e. designing a user-interface). His
fourth and fifth barriers were recorded while working alone at home, as we aforementioned
and his recorded activities were “configuring firmware” and “reading e-mails” respectively. The
sixth barrier was recorded on the second day of the study at 6:56 am while the participant was
working alone at his desk space and his activity was “trying to concentrate working”. The last
recorded barrier occurred fifteen days later (one week before the study was completed) at
12:55 pm while the participant was working with one of his colleagues who did not belong in
his team and his recorded activity was “planning”. His phone’s Bluetooth scans show that
participant “TAIK3” was within range at that specific time. However, as we know that “TAIK2”
and “TAIK3” work occasionally as a team, we assume that the participant must had been
working with a colleague other than “TAIK3”, unless he considers “TAIK3” to be not one of his
team members, something which we consider highly unlikely.
By analyzing the participant’s transitions as recorded by his phone’s Bluetooth scans, we saw
that the participant spent most of his time in his desk space (RoomID 16) but unlike “TAIK1”, he
often visited other spaces within Taivas, yielding an average micro to macro mobility ratio. He
often spent time in the desk space next to his (RoomID 17) where more table space is provided,
both being alone and with his teammate (TAIK3), and he often paid visits to colleagues situated
at RoomID 11 which is quite far away from his personal work space. He was often located in the
small lounge area near to his desk (RoomID 13) both being alone and with “TAIK3” present, as
well as in the meeting room placed above that lounge (RoomID 6), again sometimes being alone
and in some other occasions with participant “TAIK3” being within his phone’s scan radius.
There were no recordings of him in the third floor cafeteria. One of his two reported ideas was
recorded while he was at home, at the presence of family members and the other one while he
was alone at his office space. Both of his ideas occurred during early morning hours. Out of his
seven reported barriers, two were recorded while being at home working alone and the other
five while at the office working alone, except for once when he was working with two
colleagues. However, we found no pattern with regard to the time of their occurrence.
According to his mobile phone’s Bluetooth scans we know that he often had the phone on
while out of the office. Still, apart from three incidents that were reported to have taken place
at his home, we have no other explicit data with regard to his out-of-office work habits. Finally,
the collected data show that the participant never used the phone during weekends.
Participant “TAIK2” reported being involved in activities with others only six times in the
eighty six surveys he answered. His meetings involved team members (two times), family
members (once) and colleagues outside his team (three times). Still, our data analysis shows
that he was often attending meetings in one of the first floor meeting rooms (RoomID 6) along
with “TAIK3”. It is interesting that in two Bluetooth-triggered surveys the participant reported
doing tasks alone and his recorded activity was “meeting”. His phone’s bluetooth scans show
that during this time period, no other participants were within detection range. However, the
participant recorded one more activity between those two meetings, that of “e-mailing”. This
fact made us assume that “TAIK2” must have been involved in some kind of virtual meeting
58
(most probably online), since he was physically alone. Such kind of activities, being alone and in
a meeting at the same time, have been reported by other participants too. In order to better
track knowledge acquisition and exchange of information in virtual environments, we feel that
in future studies a question should be included in the “Social interaction” branch in order to
capture these interactions. A sample question could be “Was your interaction with others:
1)physical (face to face) 2)virtual (email, chat etc).
Overall, “TAIK2” recorded fifteen unique (translated) activities over his participation period
(see sample in Figure 30). He often recorded that he was emailing, downloading, guide lining, as
well as lay outing, designing and planning. It is interesting that by reviewing his activities, we
saw that during each work day, the participant would report dealing with specific tasks over
long periods of time. Additionally, his daily schedule seems to be more “structured”
(repetitive) than that of participant “TAIK1”. During the four week period he reported only
fifteen unique activities that are “normally” distributed on a weekly basis, whereas participant
“TAIK1” reported thirteen unique activities in a period of four days (see Appendix L). Of course,
had participant “TAIK1” been part of the study for the entire four week period, perhaps we
would be able to detect a similar pattern to that of subject “TAIK2” and possibly an upper limit
of unique recorded activities close to the number recorded during the first week (i.e. thirteen).
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
day1
day2
day3
day4
day5
designing
having lunch
configuring firmware
e-mailing
trying to focus
contacting
in a meeting
promoting sites
downloading
guidelining
projecting
setting up
updating
reviewing information
translating
Figure 30 – Daily activities distribution for participant TAIK2 during week 1
We will now briefly juxtapose our findings with some of the answers that participant “TAIK2”
gave in the Pre-study Questionnaire (see Appendix A). In the question “Where do you prefer to
work when you are trying to come up with ideas?” the participant’s first two answers were “In
Taivas” and “At home” (the other two were “in public spaces” and in his “summer cottage”).
Our data agree with his answers since his recorded ideas occurred to him while in Taivas and at
home. When asked “When during the day do you think you usually get the best ideas?”, the
participant replied “Early morning”. Again, his answer is in accordance with our data as his
ideas occurred to him at 4:07 am and 6:27 am. However, when “TAIK2” was asked “When
during the week do you think you usually get the best ideas?”, he replied “At the end of the
59
week”. His statement somewhat agrees with our data since his ideas occurred on a Tuesday
and on a Thursday respectively. In the question “Do you think you have (more or) better ideas
while working with others or alone?” the participant answered “With others”. His answer does
not really agree with our data since he was rarely working with others (only in six out of eighty
six completed surveys or in 7% of his total recorded activities) and only once an idea occurred
to him while he was working with family members. In the next question, “With whom you
usually work when trying to come up with ideas? (Pick all that apply.)”, the participant chose his
“Working partner” and “A friend”. As we aforementioned, the participant recorded working
with his team member only twice, and his phone’s scans show that in many occasions, when he
was located in the small lounge area close to his desk and in a meeting room on the first floor,
participant “TAIK3” was within range. In none of these occasions were any of the other case
study participants present (e.g. “TAIK1”). This fact does not exclude the possibility of other
Taivas employees being present, since not every employee participated in the study, and it
does not certify that “TAIK2” and “TAIK3” were working together in these occasions (proximity
does not necessarily mean interaction). We feel that this analysis could be provided as feedback
to participant “TAIK2”, in order to reconsider his statement of being more creative when
working with others and especially with his team members.
In this section we will try to explain why the participant has recorded working mostly alone. In
the question “If you prefer to work alone, what is the most important reason for this?”, the
participant answered “For quiet”. The participant spent a lot of time in his personal workspace
and at the desk space next to his (RoomID 16 and 17), in the quiet far corner of the ground
floor, were more space and work tables are available. This, along with the facts that he
considers distraction as one of the major factors that prevent him from coming up with ideas
(along with missing information) and that he would choose a different workplace mainly for
reasons of privacy, shows that “TAIK2” often needs to work in a quiet area and quite possibly
alone. In the following question “TAIK2” was asked “What do you think would contribute more
to your having more or better ideas? (Rank them, 1 = most important)” the participant
answered in ranked order “Better access to information”, “Different workspace configuration”,
“More time per project”, “More interaction with others” and “Better equipment”. From his
answers we see that the participant feels that he already has enough social interaction within
the office environment and he is not in need of more. However, more social interaction with his
team member as well as with other co-workers could lead to more information exchange and
thus a higher probability for creative behavior. Still, we can not certainly deduct that “TAIK2” is
a “lonely” person, since he might be interacting a lot in ways that our methodology was not
able to capture, i.e. with employees that did not participate in the case study (and thus were
not recognizable in the participant’s phone scans) as well as in virtual environments or even
outside the office space.
Before we conclude, we will review the participant’s statements with regard to the effects of
routine and deadlines in his work-life. In the statement “Usually I get my best ideas when I have
scheduled my activities in advance.”, the participant replied “disagree a little”. Since we have
no data with regard to his schedule we can not assess this statement. However, when
contrasted to his answer in the statement “I perform better while following a daily office
routine”, which was “Agree”, we see a discrepancy. We already mentioned that the
participant’s work life activities seem to be more “structured” and evenly distributed than that
60
of “TAIK1” and this implies that he follows a routine (either imposed by job demands, or
personal, or both). However, following a daily or weekly routine demands scheduling. It is our
belief that either the participant does not believe that scheduling and creativity are related and
thus scheduling has no effect on the ideation process, or that a better performance does not
necessarily mean having more or better ideas.
Data Analysis Summary for participant “TAIK2”
During the case study period, the participant recorded two ideas (see Figure 32), seven
barriers and answered seventy seven Bluetooth-triggered surveys, thus providing us with eighty
six complete surveys. He recorded being involved in activities with others six times (7% of
recorded activities). His meetings with others involved team members (two times), colleagues
outside his team (three times) and family members (once). It is interesting that in two
Bluetooth-triggered surveys the participant reported doing tasks alone and his recorded activity
was “meeting”, implying some kind of virtual interaction took place.
Fifteen unique (translated) activities were reported (see Figure 31). “TAIK2” often recorded
that he was emailing, downloading, guide lining, as well as lay outing, designing and planning.
His work life activities seem to be more “structured” and evenly distributed than that of
“TAIK1” and this implies that he follows a routine. The participant spent most of his time in his
desk space but he often visited other spaces within Taivas, yielding an average micro to macro
mobility ratio. One of his two reported ideas was recorded while he was at home, at the
presence of family members and the other one while he was alone at his office space. Both of
his ideas occurred during early morning hours. Out of his seven reported barriers, two were
recorded while being at home working alone and the other five while at the office working
alone, except for once when he was working with two colleagues. However, we found no
pattern with regard to the time of their occurrence. According to his phone’s Bluetooth scans
we know that he often had the phone on while out of the office, but apart from three incidents
that were reported to have taken place at his home, we have no other explicit data with regard
to his out-of-office work habits.
The participant stated that he prefers to work at Taivas and at home and that most of his
ideas occur to him during early morning hours, which both are in accordance with our data. He
also thinks that he gets more ideas towards the end of the week, which somewhat agrees with
our findings. The participant believes that he has more and better ideas while working with
others, and more specifically when working with team members and friends. However, his
recordings show that he was rarely working with team members (only in two out of the eighty
six completed surveys or in 2% of his total recorded activities). Still, he thinks that he has
enough social interaction already. “TAIK2” values quiet spaces and privacy a lot, which is
probably why he chose to spent a lot of time in his desk space and in the quiet spaces near by.
Scheduling activities is not something he believes would help him come up with more ideas, yet
he states he performs better when following a routine and our data show that he usually does.
61
Number of Activity Occurrences
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Activity Type
designing
having lunch
configuring firmware
e-mailing
trying to focus
contacting
in a meeting
promoting sites
downloading
guidelining
projecting
setting up
updating
reviewing information
translating
Figure 31 – Aggregate unique recorded activities for participant TAIK2 during week 1
62
Personal Other Desk Meeting
Desk space
space
room
Early
Morning
alone
with team
member(s)
with other
colleague(s)
with boss
with clients
with friends
with family
Morning
alone
with team
member(s)
with other
colleague(s)
with boss
with clients
with friends
with family
Noon
alone
with team
member(s)
with other
colleague(s)
with boss
with clients
with friends
with family
1
Printer
Room
Lounge
Taivas café
Other
workplace
Home
Public
Space
Restaurant In Transit
/Bar/Cafe
2
4
1
1
Afternoon alone
with team
member(s)
with other
colleague(s)
with boss
with clients
with friends
with family
Figure 32 – Location, time and social context of ideas and barriers recorded by participant TAIK2
*Green cells represent ideas while red barriers
**Numbers within cells indicate the number of recordings for the specific combination
63
Participant TAIK3
Participant “TAIK3” is a twenty seven year old designer, holds a BA degree and has been
working for Taivas for around one and a half years. “TAIK3” works occasionally as a team with
“TAIK2”, and they both occasionally work with participant “TAIK1”. During the case study
period he recorded fourteen ideas, ten barriers and answered fifty three Bluetooth-triggered
surveys, thus providing us with seventy seven complete surveys. Figure 33 below shows his
daily compliance rate during week 1. We have already mentioned that his ratio of answered
surveys to received prompts was ideal, as demonstrated by the matching curves below.
Number of Prompts
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Monday
Tuesday
Number of Prompts
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Answered Bluetooth Surveys
Figure 33 – Daily response rate for week 1
Participant “TAIK3” recorded the highest number of ideas, the second highest number of
barriers and the highest number of unique recorded activities. In order to fully present our
findings about this subject in the same manner as we did for participants “TAIK1” and “TAIK2”,
Time
9:31
12:04
12:35
6:19
9:15
11:22
13:05
16:14
16:27
6:22
10:51
9:42
7:27
9:05
Location
In transit
Taivas - Room16
Taivas - Room16
Home
Taivas - Room13
Taivas - Room16
Taivas - Room16
In transit
Restaurant/Bar/Cafe
Home
Taivas - Room16
Taivas - Room16
Taivas - Room16
In public space
Social Context
Alone
Alone
Alone
Alone
2 team members
Alone
2 team members
Alone
Alone
1 family member
2 team members
Alone
Alone
1 friend
Activity Type
walking through a park while eating ice-cream
modeling
3D modeling a logo
sleeping resting in bed
walking around the office. solving technical problems with team members
surfing the internet
listening to top gun soundtrack
walking
waiting for food as I understood how something works
brushing teeth whilst I got an idea about one brochure
going through stock video for a project
video edit
planning
going through a webpage
Table 2 – Location, time and social context of ideas for participant TAIK3
64
a very lengthy report would be required; thus, for reasons of economy we have summarized his
recordings of ideas and barriers with regard to location, time, social context and reported
activities in Tables 1 and 2. With regard to location, eight out of the total fourteen ideas that
occurred to him where recorded while he was working in Taivas, either alone (five times), or
with team members (three times). In two occasions he recorded ideas when he was at home,
while resting in bed alone and while brushing his teeth in the presence of one of his family
members. In another two occasions he recorded ideas while walking on his own, whereas his
other two ideas were recorded while waiting for food in a restaurant alone and while working
with a friend in a public space. In most occasions, ideas occurred to him while he was working
alone and their majority was recorded during the morning hours.
It is apparent that the situations during which the subject reported that an idea had occurred
to him vary significantly from every aspect. An interesting observation was that “TAIK3” was the
only subject who reported being visited by friends and family members while working in Taivas.
Moreover, by analyzing the Bluetooth scans of his mobile phone we saw that other participants
were within his range quite frequently, above the observed average number of social
interactions. Finally we would like to mention that participant “TAIK3” was the only one who
tried to capture some of his ideas by taking pictures of the situations that led to their
occurrence. Unfortunately, due to a malfunction in his phone’s storage card we were not able
to retrieve them.
Let us now have a brief look at the recordings of the subject’s barriers. As we can see from
Table 2, the vast majority of barriers were recorded in the morning while the participant was
working in his desk space or in desk spaces nearby. In four out of ten occasions “TAIK3” was
working with either team members (twice), or colleagues who did not belong in his team
(twice), whereas the remaining six barriers were recorded while he was engaged in activities
alone. The subject quite often reported problems that were related to his mood and
productivity levels and in some occasions to his social interactions (i.e. discussions in person
and over the phone). The participant also recorded three barriers while he was designing.
However, due to the aforementioned randomization issue, he was unable to provide us with
more information about the nature of those barriers.
Time
11:43
6:24
10:12
10:17
10:22
10:23
13:38
14:09
16:11
16:21
Location
Taivas - Room16
In transit
Taivas - Room16
Taivas - Room16
Taivas - Room16
Taivas - Room16
Taivas - Room16
Taivas - Room13
Taivas - Room14
Restaurant/Bar/Cafe
Social Context
Activity Type
Alone
procrastinating (Not at all productive)
Alone
thinking about going to work
1 other colleague
briefing subcontractor (using phone)
Alone
working on a simple web application - Needed access to info
2 team members
discussing about project - Too tired or bad mood
Alone
photoshopping
2 team members
web design
2 other colleagues/team
discussing about web development
Alone
thinking*
(Not at all productive)
Alone
waiting
Table 3 – Location, time and social context of barriers for participant TAIK3
By analyzing the participant’s transitions as recorded by his phone’s Bluetooth scans, we saw
that the participant spent a lot of time in his desk space (RoomID 16) and in desk spaces nearby.
Unlike participant “TAIK1” though, the subject visited spaces located in different floors and
65
areas very often, yielding a low micro-mobility (desk-to-desk) to macro-mobility (floor-to-floor
/space-to-space) ratio. “TAIK3” often paid visits to participant’s “TAIK4” desk space (RoomID
11) and was occasionally located to execute tasks in the work table area (RoomID 17). In many
occasions the subject was in the second floor meeting rooms (RoomID 5 and RoomID6), either
alone or with others. There were also recordings of him being in the cafeteria space (RoomID 1)
as well as in the red couch lounge space (RoomID 23). The participant often had his phone on
while being out of the office, as demonstrated by his idea and barrier recordings, but he would
occasionally switch it off while being in Taivas’ premises.
Overall, “TAIK3” recorded twenty seven unique (translated) activities over his participation
period (see sample in Figure 34). He often recorded that he was 3D modeling, surfing the web,
reviewing information, as well as editing videos and images. The daily schedule of the subject
appears to be unstructured (unlike participant’s “TAIK2”), as every work day accommodated
different number and types of activities.
15
10
5
0
day1
day2
day3
day4
day5
having coffee
on a stroll
procrastinating
watching videos
designing
relaxing
resting in bed
thinking
discussing
solving problems
having lunch
surfing the web
listening to music
chatting
walking
playing a game
in a café
waiting
brushing teeth
reviewing information
blogging
having fun
video editing
drinking
online shopping
in a meeting
negotiating
Figure 34 – Daily activities distribution for participant TAIK3 during week 1
We will now juxtapose our findings with the data that participant “TAIK3” provided us with in
the Pre-study Questionnaire (see Appendix A). Once again, for reasons of economy, we will only
demonstrate some of the findings that we though were significant. In the question “Where do
you prefer to work when you are trying to come up with ideas?” the participant answered “In
public places”. The participant indeed recorded an idea while working in a public place with a
friend; still, as such an incident took place only once, his self-proclaimed preference is not in
accordance with our data. In the question “At Taivas, are there places that you prefer to use
for creative thinking”, the participant answered “sofas, the internet printer room”. The
recordings of his transitions indeed show that “TAIK3” often spent time web surfing in various
lounge areas, thus his answer agrees with our data. When asked “When during the day do you
66
Number of Activity Occurrences
think you usually get the best ideas?”, the participant replied “Not at a particular time” which
completely opposes our findings since most of his ideas were reported to emerge during the
morning hours. In the question, “Do you think you have (more or) better ideas while working
with others or alone?” the participant answered “With others”. Once again we see a
discrepancy between his answers and our data, since the vast majority of his ideas were
recorded while he was engaged in activities alone. In the next question, “With whom you
usually work when trying to come up with ideas? (Pick all that apply.)”, the participant chose his
“Working partner” and “Team”, which are both in accordance with our records. In the following
question the subject was asked “Can you say what usually hinders you to get ideas? (Pick 3
most important ones.)”. His answers were “Distraction”, “Too much work or stress” and “Too
little time to complete the task”. His answers somewhat agree with our data, as the barriers he
recorded were related to bad mood and low productivity levels.
When asked “What do you think would contribute more to your having more or better ideas?
(Rank them, 1 = most important)”, the participant ranked “Better access to information” first.
We can assume from the collected information that the participant indeed values access to
information the most, as his transitions were often due to his seeking information. Finally, in
the statement “I perform better while following a daily office routine”, the participant replied
“Disagree a little”. Our data agree with his claim as the number and types of activities he was
engaged with on a daily basis varied a lot. Moreover, the subject recorded a very high number
of unique activities and his activity recordings follow no evident pattern (see Figures 35 and 36).
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Activity Type
having coffee
on a stroll
procrastinating
watching videos
designing
relaxing
resting in bed
thinking
discussing
solving problems
having lunch
surfing the web
listening to music
chatting
walking
playing a game
in a café
waiting
brushing teeth
reviewing information
blogging
having fun
video editing
drinking
online shopping
in a meeting
negotiating
Figure 35 – Aggregate unique recorded activities for participant TAIK3 during week 1
67
Personal Other Desk Meeting
Desk space
space
room
Early
Morning
Morning
Noon
alone
with team
member(s)
with other
colleague(s)
with boss
with clients
with friends
with family
1
alone
with team
member(s)
with other
colleague(s)
with boss
with clients
with friends
with family
2
3
1
1
alone
with team
member(s)
with other
colleague(s)
with boss
with clients
with friends
with family
2
Afternoon alone
with team
member(s)
with other
colleague(s)
with boss
with clients
with friends
with family
Printer
Room
Lounge
Taivas café
Other
workplace
Home
Public
Space
Restaurant In Transit
/Bar/Cafe
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Figure 36 – Location, time and social context of ideas and barriers recorded by participant TAIK3
*Green cells represent ideas while red barriers
**Numbers within cells indicate the number of recordings for the specific combination
68
Summary
The three qualitative reports we compiled allowed us to examine in detail the daily work lives
of participants TAIK1, TAIK2 and TAIK3. By analyzing the subject’s data we were able to find and
measure patterns of occupancy, mobility and collaboration within their distributed work
environments. In all occasions we tried to see if and how those patterns were correlated to the
process of ideation. By juxtaposing our findings to the answers that the participants provided us
with in the Pre-study Questionnaire, we were able to expose agreements and discrepancies
between the self-proclaimed lifestyles and beliefs of subjects and their actual work-life data.
For example, In the case of participant TAIK1, we have shown that the subject is probably more
creative during the morning hours, contrary to his belief that ideas often occur to him in the
afternoon. Moreover, we were able to confirm that access to information, feeling no stress,
privacy and comfortable furniture are valuable to him, as he had stated prior to the beginning
of the study. As far as participant TAIK2 is concerned, our analysis showed that indeed he
prefers to work at Taivas and at home and that most of his ideas occur to him during early
morning hours, as he had stated himself. However, his recordings show that he was rarely
working with team members, contrary to his statement that he prefers working with others.
The case of participant TAIK3 was similar, as both agreements and disparities emerged. Even
though the participant had stated that he prefers to work in public spaces while trying to come
up with ideas, our records show that most of his ideas occurred to him while he was working at
Taivas. The subject also believes that ideas do not occur to him more often during a certain
time of the day; still, most of his ideas were reported to emerge during the morning hours.
After reviewing the datasets of Taivas’ employees we would like to make the following
recommendations to the management. With regard to office design, it seems that most
participants are happy with their environment (i.e., type of furniture and arrangement,
materials and colors used, room temperature and noise levels). The only significant issue that
we found was that of poor air quality, that was reported by certain participants. This issue
should be tackled in order to provide workers with a comfortable ambient environment.
Moreover, it seems that certain participants wish for, or should be interacting with other coworkers more often. For this reason Taivas should consider design strategies in order to provide
more opportunities for informal social interactions between employees. As far as services and
work tools are concerned, it became apparent to us that an upgrade of work-related equipment
and offered information services might be required, since most recorded barriers were related
to either equipment failures or missing information and because most participants ranked
access to information as the most important precondition for having more ideas. As far as
Taivas’ business policies are concerned, we believe that management should provide more
opportunities to certain employees (such as TAIK3) to work out of the office via the right choice
and provision of ICT.
69
Participant Feedback
After the completion of the study participants were asked to provide feedback about their
participation by filling out a Post-study Questionnaire1. During the session nine out of eleven
participants were present and provided answers and recommendations with regard to the
content and structure of the survey (i.e. phrasing, ordering and typology of the questions),
easiness of survey completion (i.e. completion time and understanding the question), as well as
technical limitations and problems they faced while carrying and using the survey phone2.
Overall, their remarks were quite constructive and should be taken into consideration in the
design of surveys with regard to their content and interface, as well as in choosing appropriate
mobile phone devices in future studies. Below we summarize their most practical comments.
As far as the content of the survey is concerned, some useful additions were made. In the
question “Where were you?”, participants thought that the option “Friend’s place” should be
added. In the question “Were you engaged in activities alone/ with 1 other person/ with 2 or
more persons?”, the most interesting remark was to add the option “Physically or via chat/ email”, an addition that we recommended ourselves earlier on, as it would provide us with
useful insight about information acquisition and diffusion via social interactions within virtual
environments. In the question “Why did you pick this space for your activities?” an option we
missed was “Because it is the habit”; this option would better allow us to juxtapose frequency
of occupancy of certain office spaces by subjects to their self-proclaimed habits. In the question
“What tools did you use?” an important choice we missed out was “Design books, magazines,
etc.”. Finally, when subjects were asked what would have been the most important question to
ask had they designed the survey themselves, the most useful suggestion was “Was the day
successful as a whole?”. The answer to this query would expose a participant’s overall sense
and feelings for his/her work day and could be juxtaposed to the respective number of
recorded ideas and barriers as well as stress levels.
During the feedback session it became apparent to us that in some cases participants were
unable to understand that certain questions were designed as multiple-choice, even though
they were explicitly stated to be so in the MyExperience interface (instructions “pick all that
apply/ scroll down for more options” were displayed right next to or below the questions). For
example in the questions “Who were you with?”, “What was hindering you?” and “Why did you
pick this space for your activities?” some options were missed out by certain subjects, as they
informed us, because they hadn’t realized that they could scroll down the phone’s screen, even
though a scroll bar had been inserted in the interface. Such misunderstandings can be easily
overcome by spending some time training participants on how to use the phone’s interface.
With regard to the type of questions used in the phone survey (i.e. single choice, multiple
choice, open-ended), participants had many suggestions to make. In some cases they thought
that certain open-ended questions (where subjects had to type in their answers) should be
replaced by multiple-choice ones; this was the case for the question “What were you doing?”
which was originally designed as multiple-choice, but was later changed to open-ended in order
1
2
Please see Appendix M – Post-study questionnaire
Please see Appendix N – Participants’ Post-study Questionnaire Answers
70
to capture richer data. On the other hand, for the questions “In interacting with others were
you mostly providing info/ receiving info” and “How important was this interaction for your
current activities?”, certain participants felt that they should be allowed to provide more
information about their social interactions by typing in a text field.
Even though we tried to ask questions in the shortest and simplest possible way, some
subjects felt uncertain about the content and aim of the questions at times. For example, for
the question “What were you doing?” some participants were not sure whether they should
answer what they were actually doing at the moment (i.e. their actual acts) or what they were
trying to do but had not yet done (i.e. their aim). In other cases, such in that of the question
“Was this a big idea/ small idea?”, certain subjects felt it would be difficult to characterize ideas
as “big” or “small”, even though this was a terminology borrowed from Taivas’ internal
language and not extraneously imposed by us. Furthermore, some subjects felt they were
executing their “creative” duties in a way that they did not fit in the general concept of what we
call an “idea” and thus could not be characterized as such. One subject even stated that it is
very hard to define what an idea is in general, hence characterizing ideas as big or small is an
impossible (and perhaps absurd) task. Similar kinds of comments were provided for the
questions “Can you capture the situation that led to this idea? / Can you capture the situation
that hindered you?” since trying to describe the generative process of an idea is a challenging
task.
When asked about the kinds of problems that emerged while carrying and using the phones,
participants referred to both software and hardware issues. As we have aforementioned,
certain participants were alarmed too often during the first part of the study due to their being
mislocated by the Bluetooth algorithm (see Data Analysis – Initial results). This issue was mostly
resolved (but not fully) by optimizing the algorithm’s location look-up table. However, subjects
got accustomed to being prompted often, thus when we changed the conditions for triggering
surveys and the maximum number of possible daily prompts, they reported that as an issue, as
they were not prompted that often. Certain participants also reported that MyExperience
would appear to be slow from time to time (especially towards the end of the study) and that it
would cause the phone to switch off at night while it was recharging. Moreover, almost every
subject was annoyed by the phone’s short battery life. As far as the phone’s actual design was
concerned, participants reported that the size of the phone was too big to carry around and
they were also dissatisfied about the design of the keyboard.
Overall, participants felt comfortable with the number of questions asked per prompt and
they believe that by adding more variety to the queries along with customized questions for
each participant, the study will become more pleasurable. Two out of nine participants present
ranked technical improvements as the most important issue to be tackled, while another three
believe that fewer surveys per day would substantially improve the study. Finally, when asked if
they would participate in such kind of a study again, six participants replied “yes”, one replied
“yes, if it would work properly”, one participant answered “maybe” and one participant
answered “The idea is good but it is not possible to participate fully because of the lot of work.”
No participant gave a negative answer, thus encouraging us to continue with the development
of the methodology.
71
Conclusions
As we have seen, Context-Aware Experience Sampling is a useful and potentially powerful tool
for studying the behavior of office space occupants when combined with traditional
ethnographic tools. The ubiquity, increasing processing power and relatively low cost of mobile
phones, makes them ideal candidates for context-aware experience sampling applications. The
amount of data that can be collected per participant via a mobile phone is vast and quite rich in
information content, allowing researchers to conduct both quantitative and qualitative
analyses. By juxtaposing self-proclaimed habits and beliefs of knowledge workers to their actual
work-life data we are able to make assessments and possibly predictions about their work
behavior by exposing similarities and discrepancies between the two. These assessments could
be compiled in the form of reports like the ones we have reviewed and could be provided to
knowledge workers as feedback. Moreover, by cross-referencing data between participants we
are allowed to review group dynamics and track significant incidents and measures at various
levels (i.e. across employees, teams or even larger social structures), thus gaining a “global
view” of the workplace. By developing the appropriate visualization tools we can offer
managers and coordinators easy to understand, real-time, anonymized data that can help them
make more informed decisions about the workplace.
72
Future Work
In the Taivas case study we tried to track the occurrence and diffusion of ideas and barriers in
the distributed work environment of knowledge workers, a matter of such complexity that it
could not have been analyzed in a cost effective, non-obtrusive way simply by using traditional
ethnographic tools. As this was the first full scale study using Context-Aware Experience
Sampling, it is sensible that there is a lot of room for improvement and a lot of work left to be
done. Even though we have managed to analyze subjects’ patterns of occupancy, mobility and
collaboration and to correlate them to the process of ideation, our collection of data was more
or less confined within the office space. As we know, distributed work is by nature multilocational (work is conducted by people located in different divisions, firms, organizations and
time-zones) and mobile (people conduct work while transiting (Micro-Macro Mobility). Thus, in
order to obtain better data, it is necessary that in future studies subjects are tracked while
being out of their main office. Our initial intention was to use the phone’s built-in GPS device in
order to learn more about the activities and interactions of knowledge workers, however, due
to the battery consumption that such a configuration would cause (i.e. scanning for Bluetooth
devices and for satellite signal concurrently), we decided not to employ such a system.
Moreover, our findings were based on the juxtaposition of the subjects’ Pre-Questionnaire
answers to the responses they gave in the mobile phone survey. The next step would be to use
body and mobile phone sensors (such as heart rate sensors and accelerometers) that can
monitor the physical condition and movements of subjects in order to obtain additional, more
objective data. These kinds of data can be checked against the participants’ self-reports and
could help resolve ambiguous situations. We say that because during the Taivas case study,
there were occasions where participants were not sure how to assess their own stress levels,
allowing for misinterpretations to occur in the analyses of their activities;1by employing the
aforementioned system, such situations could be easily resolved.
Even though we were able to collect great amounts of data, their analyses and visualizations
were made by using traditional statistical analysis tools and graphs. However, in order to be
able to understand the complex associations between the variables that describe distributed
work, we have to invent new types of visualization tools. The next step would be to determine
which visualization type is most suitable for which type of work-life data and to develop
visualizations that exploit the power of human visual intelligence to detect patterns (see Images
1, 2 at the chapter’s end). Additionally, research efforts should be turned to the development
of algorithms that can be trained to find patterns of work in order to inform the development
of design tools for future office, home and urban design as well as work policies.
Before we conclude we would like to make certain recommendations for future studies. With
regard to survey design we recommend the average number of daily prompts to be around
eight. Moreover, rethinking of the strategic positioning and inclusion of the “continue” option
within the mobile phone survey is required so as to minimize data loss. Our analysis showed
that we would have gotten more complete data sets if we had allowed participants to either
provide answers for the entire survey or to let the survey time-out than by allowing them
1
Please see Appendix N – Participants’ Post-study Questionnaire Answers
73
to exit the survey after the “continue” option. One more issue that should be reconsidered
is the use of the option “other”. We believe that it should either be removed or replaced by
an open-ended question. Additionally, as randomizing between branches after the
“continue” option causes a 50% data loss with regard to the occurrence of ideas and
barriers, we suggest either an increase of the chance of the idea and barrier branches to
show up (e.g. to 75%), or an alternative structuring of the survey. Finally, by reviewing
participant feedback and the case study results, we think that certain questions and options
should be incorporated in the phone survey. These include:
The addition of the option “view” in the question “What was the most important spatial
quality?”
The addition of the option “Friends place” in the question “Where were you?”
The addition of the question “Was your interaction with others: 1) physical (face to face)
2) virtual (email, chat etc)?”
The addition of the question “Was this idea related to your last recorded idea?”, or
“Was this idea: 1) development of an existing idea 2) brand new idea.”
The addition of the question “Overall, was this a productive day?”
The addition of a question in the phone survey that would provide us with feedback
about a worker’s workload management skills.
The addition of customized questions for each participant.
With regard to the sensor technology to be employed in future studies we recommend the
use of programmable beacons such as Wockets. The advantage of these beacons is that their
power transmission can be controlled accurately and thus the signal strength of the sensor can
be adjusted without too much hassle. Moreover, the following issues should be considered if
the method of Bluetooth scans is employed:
•
•
•
•
•
Variation in Bluetooth networks is unpredictable due to environmental noise (i.e. due to
the appearance of non-study related devices that take up a large portion of the number
of allowed detected devices, as well as due to signal reflections from study related
devices caused by metal surfaces and movement of people).
The higher the number of Bluetooth devices present in the study area is, the greater the
detection time of devices per scan will be (it could reach a minute).
The higher the frequency of Bluetooth scans is, the faster the phone’s battery will drain.
The Bluetooth protocol is heavy; Smartphones cannot be used for continuous
processing in the same way as a desktop computer can.
Reading Bluetooth signal strength by using the Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI)
with each data packet received is not always possible due to the different bluetooth
stacks implemented by different mobile phone brands, nor is it recommended due to
the non-uniform Bluetooth signal field (the Samsung SGH-i617 Blackjack II uses the
Microsoft Bluetooth stack).
As far as the choice of mobile phones to be used in future studies is concerned, three issues
should be considered. First, the phone’s size should not be too big so it can be easily carried
74
around by subjects. Second, the size of the keyboard should allow quick typing of text, so that
participants won’t feel discouraged to type their answers when presented with open-ended
questions during the survey. Finally, battery life should be the most important criterion as it has
been shown to be the main concern of most participants. In our case, battery power lasted up
to eight hours when MyExperience was idle (i.e. when participants did not initiate surveys and
were not prompted to answer Bluetooth-triggered surveys) and six hours during normal
operation.
To conclude, with regard to the choice of experience sampling software to be run on the
phones in future studies we recommend the use of MyExperience if the selected mobile phone
runs the Windows Mobile operating system. A universal experience sampling software would
be an ideal solution, as it could be run in the participants’ personal mobile phones, thus
eliminating the need for subjects to carry an extra phone. Such a solution is yet unrealistic as
mobile phone manufacturers use different platforms for running and developing applications.
Image 1 – The image shows the states (red, yellow, green) of 3 Taivas employees belonging in 2
different teams at a specific time, juxtaposed to current location, collaborations and work habits.
Image 2 – Ideas and Barriers Gradient
75
Appendix A – Pre-study Questionnaire
Name
Phone number
IMEI
ID
The year of birth
Education
Job description
How long have you worked in Taivas/ Ego?
How long have you worked in the field?
76
1. Where do you prefer to work when you are trying to come up with ideas?
__ In Taivas
__ At home
__ In public places
__ Other workplace outside Taivas
__ Other, please specify
2. At Taivas, are there places that you prefer to use for creative thinking?
__ No
__Yes
Could you name those places?
3. When during the day do you think you usually get the best ideas?
__ Early morning
__ Lunch break
__ Afternoon
__ Evening
__ Night
__ Not at the particular time // Not at a particular times
4. When during the week do you think you usually get the best ideas?
__ At the beginning of the week
__ At the end of the week
__ At the weekend
__ Not at the particular time
5. Do you think you have (more or) better ideas while working with others or alone?
__ With others
__ Alone
77
6. With whom you usually work when trying to come up with ideas? (Pick all that apply.)
__ Your working partner
__ Your team
__ A client
__ A friend
__ A colleague outside your team
__ Other, please specify
7. If you prefer to work alone, what is the most important reason for this?
__ For privacy
__ For quiet
__ For a change
__ Other, please specify
8. If you prefer to work with others, what is the most important reason for this?
__ To try out your ideas with others
__ To have the expertise of others available if needed
__ To keep up to date with what others are doing
__ To be in the presence of others
__ Other, please specify
9. Are there some activities that you think are especially good for you to create ideas? Could you name
a few?
78
10. Can you say what usually hinders you to get ideas? (Pick 3 most important ones.)
__ Person unavailable
__ Missing information
__ Equipment failure
__ Distraction
__ Too much work or stress
__ Too little time to complete the task
__ Too many tasks at the same time
__ Other, please specify
11. What do you think would contribute more to your having more or better ideas? (Rank them, 1 =
most important)
__ Different workspace configuration
__ More interaction with others
__ Better access to information
__ More time per project
__ Better equipment
__ Other, please specify
____________________________________________________________
12. What is the most important spatial quality for you?
__ Quiet
__ Peaceful
__ Good lighting
__ Comfortable furniture
__ Nice materials / colors
__ Air quality
__ Room temperature
__ Other, please specify
13. Why might you choose another place than your work station to work in? (Rank them, 1 = most
important)
__ For a change
__ For privacy
__ For company
__ For a larger working area
__ For certain equipment
__ Other, please specify
79
14. What kind of shared system do you use the most?
__ Projector
__ White board
__ Wall space
__ Work table
__ Other, please specify
15. What are the attributes of personal work space you would like to have? (Rank them, 1 = most
important)
__ Lots of room
__ Privacy
__ Quiet
__ Everything at hand
__ People around
__ Other, please specify
16. What kind of shared space would you like to have? (Rank them, 1 = most important)
__ Room for projects
__ Privacy for meetings
__ Equipment always at hand
__ Other, please specify
17. For what activities do you need a particular kind of space? (Rank them, 1 = most important)
__ Presenting
__ Brainstorming / discussing
__ Sketching
__ Socializing
__ Relaxation
__ Other, please specify
80
18. Usually I follow a standard methodology to come up with ideas.
__ Agree a lot
__ Agree
__ Disagree a little
__ Disagree a lot
19. Usually I get my best ideas when I have scheduled my activities in advance.
__ Agree a lot
__ Agree
__ Disagree a little
__ Disagree a lot
20. I perform better while following a daily office routine.
__ Agree a lot
__ Agree
__ Disagree a little
__ Disagree a lot
21. I perform better when I have some kind of deadline.
__ Agree a lot
__ Agree
__ Disagree a little
__ Disagree a lot
81
Appendix B – Participants’ Pre-study Questionnaire Answers
82
Cell: B4
Comment: Where do you prefer to work when you are trying to come up with ideas?
1. In Taivas
2. At home
3. In public places
4. Other workplace outside Taivas
8. Other, please specify
Cell: F4 Comment:
At Taivas, are there places that you prefer to use for creative thinking?
1. No
2. Yes Could you name those places?
Cell: G4 Comment:
When during the day do you think you usually get the best ideas?
1. Early morning
2. Lunch break
3. Afternoon
4. Evening
5. Night
6. Not at the particular time
Cell: K4 Comment:
When during the week do you think you usually get the best ideas?
1. At the beginning of the week
2. At the end of the week
3. At the weekend
4. Not at the particular time
Cell: M4 Comment:
Do you think you have (more or) better ideas while working with others or alone?
1. With others
2. Alone
Cell: N4 Comment:
With whom you usually work when trying to come up with ideas? (Pick all that apply.)
1. Your working partner
2. Your team
3. A client
4. A friend
5. A colleague outside your team
8. Other, please specify
Cell: S4 Comment:
If you prefer to work alone, what is the most important reason for this?
1. For privacy
2. For quiet
3. For a change
8. Other, please specify
Cell: T4 Comment:
If you prefer to work with others, what is the most important reason for this?
83
1. To try out your ideas with others
2. To have the expertise of others available if needed
3. To keep up to date with what others are doing
4. To be in the presence of others
8. Other, please specify
Cell: U4 Comment:
Are there some activities that you think are especially good for you to create ideas? Could you name a few?
Cell: V4 Comment: Can you say what usually hinders you to get ideas? (Pick 3 most important ones.)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Person unavailable
Missing information
Equipment failure
Distraction
Too much work or stress
Too little time to complete the task
Too many tasks at the same time
Other, please specify
Cell: F6 Comment: No particular places, basically where there is a sofa where you can exchange with other people
Cell: U6 Comment:
No special activity, just need to feel no pressure.
Cell: E7 Comment:
Summer cottage
Cell: T7 Comment:
Picked two options: 1,2
Cell: U7 Comment:
Sports and outdoor activities
Cell: F8 Comment:
Sofas, the internet, printer room (has a flipper)
Cell: S8 Comment:
To concentrate on difficult tasks
Cell: U8 Comment: Sports retroactively help me to get out of my regular problem solving patterns thus helping me to be more open-minded. Sports & videogames.
Cell: F9 Comment:
Small meeting rooms such as [?] or sofas.
Cell: U9 Comment: Research, brainstorming, taking break and doing physical exercise when getting stuck with an idea
84
Cell: F11
Comment: Cozy rooms with sofas and stuff
Cell: S11 Comment:
Time to think and mull
Cell: U11 Comment:
Free writing, mind maps
Cell: S12 Comment:
I get more focused ideas, more unique ideas.
Cell: U12 Comment:
Walking around the city with no destination. Lunch time, eating.
Cell: F13 Comment:
Rooms with sofas or otherwise relaxed
Cell: U13
Comment: gym on the way home (tram) walking in the streets
Cell: M14 Comment:
Picked both options.
Cell: U14 Comment:
Working under pressure!
Cell: F15 Comment:
Cozy meeting rooms
Cell: U15 Comment:
Big piece of paper to draw
Cell: D16 Comment:
Field research (in different places with different users)
Cell: F16 Comment: Commented "no" option:
There are no one place above others
Cell: M16 Comment:
Picked both options.
Comment: Requires both!
Cell: Q16 Comment:
With users
Cell: S16 Comment: Commented option 2:
Peaceful (flow won't be disturbed!)
85
Cell: T16
Comment: Picked two options:
1,2
Cell: U16 Comment:
I use a lot different kinds of knowledge acquisition, analyzing, and ideation methods. Prototyping and testing are importa
nt also.
Cell: X16 Comment: Picked 7 options:
2,3,4,5,6,7 and other: Not in the right mood or motivated
Cell: B18 Comment:
What do you think would contribute more to your having more or better ideas? (Rank them, 1 = most important)
1. Different workspace configuration
2. More interaction with others
3. Better access to information
4. More time per project
5. Better equipment
8. Other, please specify
Cell: G18 Comment:
What is the most important spatial quality for you?
1. Quiet
2. Peaceful
3. Good lighting
4. Comfortable furniture
5. Nice materials/ colors
6. Air quality
7. Room temperature
8. Other, please specify
Cell: H18 Comment:
Why might you choose another place than your work station to work in? (Rank them, 1 = most important)
1. For a change
2. For privacy
3. For company
4. For a larger working area
5. For certain equipment
8. Other, please specify
Cell: N18 Comment:
What kind of shared system do you use the most?
1. Projector
2. White board
3. Wall space
4. Work table
8. Other, please specify
Cell: O18 Comment:
What are the attributes of personal work space you would like to have? (Rank them, 1 = most
86
important)
1. Lots of room
2. Privacy
3. Quiet
4. Everything at hand
5. People around
8. Other, please specify
Cell: T18 Comment:
What kind of shared space would you like to have? (Rank them, 1 = most important)
1. Room for projects
2. Privacy for meetings
3. Equipment always at hand
8. Other, please specify
Cell: G22 Comment:
How furniture is placed
Cell: N22
Comment: Server
Cell: T23 Comment:
Nice, inspiring, comfortable environment/ space with comfy sofas and enough space.
Cell: H24 Comment:
For comfort
Cell: N24 Comment:
Notebook
Cell: N25 Comment:
Sketching paper
Cell: O25 Comment:
Creative atmosphere
Cell: T25 Comment:
Informal, inspiring space
Cell: G27 Comment:
The feel of the space including many of these things. Different than my desk.
Cell: J27 Comment:
Relaxation
Cell: N27
Comment: Picked two options: 1
8, sketch book
Cell: F30 Comment: Picked 4 options but didn't rank them:
1,4,5 and other: More skillful working partners
87
Cell: G30 Comment: Picked 4 options:
2,3,6 and other: Security
Cell: N30 Comment: Picked two options:
1 and other: Meeting rooms
Cell: S30 Comment:
Picked 4 options but didn't rank them: 2,3,4,5
Cell: V30
Comment: Picked two options but didn't rank them: 1,3
Commented option 1: Important
Cell: B32 Comment:
For what activities do you need a particular kind of space? (Rank them, 1 = most important)
1. Presenting
2. Brainstorming
3. Sketching
4. Socializing
5. Relaxation
8. Other, please specify
Cell: G32 Comment:
Usually I follow a standard methodology to come up with ideas.
1. Agree a lot
2. Agree
3. Disagree a little
4. Disagree a lot
Cell: H32 Comment:
Usually I get my best ideas when I have scheduled my activities in advance.
1. Agree a lot
2. Agree
3. Disagree a little
4. Disagree a lot
Cell: I32 Comment:
I perform better while following a daily office routine.
1. Agree a lot
2. Agree
3. Disagree a little
4. Disagree a lot
Cell: J32 Comment:
I perform better when I have some kind of deadline.
1. Agree a lot
2. Agree
3. Disagree a little
88
Appendix C – Consent Form
CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
Situated Innovations: Workplace
You are asked to participate in a research study conducted by the following researchers from the Future Home
Institute at the University of Art and Design Helsinki (TaiK).
Jarmo Suominen (Head of the Research Project)
Riikka Rahtola
Juha-Pekka Karinki
Johanna Lappi
This research will deploy tools developed by the House_n Research Consortium at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT). You were selected as a possible participant in this study because:
o You are at least 18 years of age.
o You work in the designated study area, Taivas, Inc. Taivas was considered to be a representative area to
implement a study focusing on creativity in modern work.
o You may have specific intellectual interest in the goals of this study.
o You are not employed by the MIT Department of Architecture or TaiK Future Home Institute.
You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand, before deciding
whether or not to participate.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and you are free to choose whether to be in it or not. If you
choose to be in this study, you may subsequently withdraw from it at any time without penalty or consequences of
any kind. The investigator may withdraw you from this research if circumstances arise which warrant doing so.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
With mobile computing and global telecommunication, the nature of work is rapidly changing. Workers,
managers, designers, and manufacturers of workplace products do not have a good understanding of where,
when, with whom, and in what activity context does the most productive and creative work take place. In
addition, designers currently lack the scalable tools to gain an empirical understanding of the effect of
architectural design on user behavior.
Direct observation of the behavior of users in existing, occupied architecture, can be a powerful tool, but
it is relatively costly, time consuming, invasive, and is difficult to deploy over many weeks or months. In addition,
self-report tools such as questionnaires have been shown to inaccurately capture mundane activity patterns, and
complex associations. Further, designers lack the tools to evaluate new designs in terms of user behavior after
they are built.
The aim of this study is to better understand complex workplace behavior using three conventional
ethnographic tools (direct observation, questionnaires, interviews) combined with a new tool developed by the
MIT House_n Research Consortium (context aware experience sampling using mobile phones and Bluetooth
beacons).
89
If proven successful, the software and hardware system we create might eventually enable a new type of
occupancy performance evaluation system for any type of environment. The algorithms could also be used to
enable new types of communication, entertainment, and educational devices for the workplace setting.
PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, we would ask you to do the following things:
1. Carry a mobile phone with a position detecting application that is only operational in the workplace that is
designated as part of the study. This workplace will also have commercial Bluetooth beacons installed throughout,
as part of this positioning system. This positioning system will be operational for 30 days.
2. Answer questions presented to you on a mobile device that you carry with you (also known as doing “experience
sampling”) for 30 days during the experiment. This self-reported activity data will be compiled and only
anonymized data will be utilized. Co-workers and management of Taivas will not have access to data about
individual workers.
These procedures are described in more detail below.
Procedure 1: Mobile Positioning System
During the experiment period, you will be asked to carry a mobile phone running an application that
simply senses whether or not a Bluetooth beacon is nearby. This data will enable us to see how many people are
occupying small spaces, and when gatherings or meetings occur. The data itself will be stripped of participant
identity and precautions are taken with the coding of the data to ensure that it cannot be used to track the
whereabouts of an individual, with positive identity. If you agree to use one of these devices, you will be asked to
carry the device throughout the study period as much as possible. The phone will not be used for telephone calls.
The positioning system will only be functional in the designated study area. If mobile device becomes
uncomfortable, you are free to not carry the device.
The Bluetooth beacons are 1 by 2 by 4 inches and encased in plastic. These will be placed in or taped to
convenient locations around the designated study area. As commercial devices, being employed for their intended
purpose, these will not disrupt any existing communications, etc.
Procedure 2: Experience Sampling
During the experiment period, we will ask you to carry a mobile phone with you, wherever you go. The
device will frequently prompt with a “beep,” or other standard device notification tone, at which time a brief set of
questions will be presented – the frequency of prompting will depend upon your movement activities, but will
range from approximately 10 minutes apart to a few hours apart. You can answer the questions by picking the
most appropriate choice, or occasionally, typing in a short response. These mobile devices with experience
sampling systems will be used to make anonymized reports of all of the participants' self-reported workplace
activities.
Along with your participation in these procedures, you may be asked to complete two questionnaires (one at the
beginning of the study, and the other at the end), and a debriefing interview at the end of the experiment. During
these questionnaires and interviews, you may decline to answer any or all questions.
During the experiment period, there will also be one or two researchers present making observations
about your activities and the use of spaces related to these activities. The researchers will conduct their
observations in the way which will respect your privacy and cause a minimum amount of inconveniences to you.
POTENTIAL DISCOMFORTS
When you are participating in experience sampling, there is a possibility that you may feel stressed by the mobile
device interruptions. You are free to decline to answer any of the questions that the mobile device presents to
you, and you may turn off or stop carrying the device should it become too stressful.
90
POTENTIAL BENEFITS
By participating in this study, you may learn about novel technologies under development. You will be provided
with personal data about your workplace activities (not available to Taivas co-workers or management) that may
allow you to gain a deeper appreciation of the richness of your everyday activities and how they are supported by
your workplace setting.
We anticipate that this study will help us to develop and measure the performance of computer
algorithms that can automatically detect everyday activities. This work may eventually lead to the development of
new devices for the workplace that help to maintain productivity.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be identified with you will remain
confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission.
Your responses will be referenced by an ID number in order to protect your identity. A study enrollment
log will be kept that will include participants’ unique identification numbers, names, telephone numbers and
enrollment data. This log will be stored the way that only the researchers have access to it.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no information will be
included that would reveal your identity. Your name will not in any way be associated your data. Once your data is
anonymized, it may be shared with other researchers for future studies.
Investigators may take still photographs of your workplace environment. If you do not wish to have
pictures taken of you or your workplace environment, you may still participate in this study without prejudice. The
photographs will only be used by the investigators for the data analysis tasks of the study and to document that
work in academic publications. The media will be under the sole control of the investigators and will be stored in a
location accessible only to the investigators. After the investigators have analyzed the results, prior to showing any
images in academic and peer-reviewed papers, or anywhere else, they will use standard methods to manipulate
the media to protect your identity, such as blurring the face.
IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Riikka Rahtola
Project Researcher
044 333 4734, riikka.rahtola@taik.fi
Juha-Pekka Karinki
Project Researcher
040 852 0913, juha-pekka.karinki@taik.fi
Johanna Lappi
Project Researcher
040 593 4823, johanna.lappi@taik.fi
91
Appendix D – Participants’ Information and Teams’ Structure
USER ID Gender Year of birth
Age
Education
Job description
TAIK1
TAIK2
TAIK3
TAIK4
TAIK5
TAIK6
TAIK7
TAIK8
TAIK9
TAIK10
TAIK11
34
40
27
33
28
31
35
33
32
41
33
University/ School of Arts
Merkonomi, datanomi
BA
MA, M.Pol.Sci.
Medianomi
MA
Medianomi
Tradenomi
University of applied sciences
Merkonomi, marketing
MA, Industrial designer
Designer
Online design manager
Designer
Media consultant, copy
Graphic designer
Concept designer
Copywriter
Art director
Interactive art director
Business designer
Service designer
M
M
M
F
F
F
M
M
M
F
M
1975
1969
1982
1976
1981
1978
1974
1976
1977
1968
1976
How long has
worked in Taivas
(years)
2
10
≈1,5
2,5
≈2,5
≈2,5
1,5
3
0,5
2,5
≈3
How long has worked
in the field (years)
11
11
6
≈3
≈2,5
5-Apr
10
10
6
3,5
≈4
merkonomi = vocational qualification in business and administration
datanomi = vocational qualification in business information technology
medianomi = a degree in media studies at a university of applied sciences
tradenomi = a degree in business, administration etc. at a university of applied sciences.
Teams’ Structure
USER ID
TAIK1
TAIK2
TAIK3
TAIK4
TAIK5
TAIK6
TAIK7
TAIK8
TAIK9
TAIK10
TAIK11
Team
TAIK1
1
1
TAIK2
1
TAIK3
1
1
TAIK4
TAIK5
TAIK6
TAIK7
TAIK8
TAIK9
TAIK10
TAIK11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
No Team TAIK2 and TAIK3 occasionally work together but they are not in the same team.
TAIK1 occasionally works with TAIK2 and TAIK3.
TAIK4 does not work with any other participants.
TAIK5, TAIK6 and TAIK9 form a team. TAIK11 occasionally works with them but usually alone.
TAIK7 and TAIK8 form a team.
TAIK10 (located in the 3rd floor) works sometimes with TAIK5, TAIK6 and TAIK11.
92
Appendix E – Mobile Phone Survey
Interface: Help improve your workplace. Report an idea or a barrier.
Idea button pressed → Q00 (If Out of Taivas) or Q01 (If in Taivas)
Barrier button pressed → Q00 (If Out of Taivas) or Q01 (If in Taivas)
Q0: Where were you?
In transit → Q4
Home → Q1
Restaurant/Bar/Café → Q1
Taivas → Q1
In public space→ Q1
Other Workplace → Q1
Other → Q1
Q1: Were you engaged in activities:
Alone → Q3
With 1 other person → Q2
With 2 or more persons → Q2
[First question if in beacon range and Idea/Barrier button pressed]
Q2: Who were you with? (Pick all that apply) → Q3
Team member
Colleague outside your team
Client
Boss
Friend
Family
Other
Q3: What were you doing? (Name maximum 2 activities)→ Q6
Q4: How were you travelling? → Q5
Bus/Tram/Train
Driving
Bike
Walking
Other
[Idea/Barrier button pressed while participant is in transit]
Q5: Were you travelling alone?
Yes → Q3
No → Q2
Q6: Congratulations! You have just earned a chance to win a bottle of wine.
Would you like to have another chance?
93
Yes → Q7 (If Idea Button Pressed) or Q14 (if Barrier Button Pressed) or Q17 or Q23 (Randomized
between Spatial and Social Branches)
No → End1
Q7: Was this a: → Q8
Big idea
Small idea
[Idea Branch | only option if participant is travelling alone]
Q8: Was this idea connected to a client brief? → Q9
Yes
No
Q9: How long have you been working on this idea? → Q10
Just got it
Not long
Sometime
Very long
Q10: How important were others in creating this idea? → Q11
Essential
Important
Somewhat important
Not that important
Q11: Can you capture the situation that led to this idea?
Take a picture → Q12
Briefly describe in words→ Q13
Not at this time → End2
Q12: Take a picture → End2
Q13: Describe the situation in 20 words or less→ End2
Q14: What was hindering you? (Pick all that apply) → Q15
Person unavailable
Missing information
Equipment failure
Distraction
Uninspired
Too much work or stress
Too many tasks at the same time
Too tired or bad mood
Other
Q15: Were you frustrated? → Q16
Not at all
A little
[Barrier Branch]
94
Somewhat
Very much
Q16: Can you capture the situation that hindered you?
Take a picture → Q12
Briefly describe in words→ Q13
Not at this time → End2
Q17: Why did you pick this space for your activities? (Pick all that apply) → Q18
It was my normal workspace
It was near/available
Needed bigger space
Needed presentation/ work tools
Needed access to info
Needed more privacy
Needed to be around others
Needed a change/stimuli
Other
[Spatial Branch]
Q18: What was the most important spatial quality? → Q19
Quiet
Peaceful
Good lighting
Comfortable furniture
Nice materials/colors
Air quality
Room temperature
Other
Q19: What tools did you use? (Pick all that apply) → Q20
Projector
White board
Wall space
Work table
Computer
Phone
Pen and paper
Other
Q20: How important was this space for your activities? → Q21
Essential
Important
Somewhat important
Not that important
95
Q21: How much was this a productive use of your time overall? → Q22
Very productive
Quite productive
Not much productive
Not at all productive
Q22: How much stress were you experiencing? → End2
A lot
Quite a bit
Not much
None
Q23: Was your interaction with others: → Q24
Scheduled
Accidental
[Social Interaction Branch]
Q24: In interacting with others were you mostly: → Q25
Providing info
Somewhat providing
Somewhat receiving
Receiving info
Q25: How important was this interaction for your current activities? → Q21
Essential
Important
Somewhat important
Not that important
End1: Thank you for taking this survey! Your chances of winning a bottle of wine are __!
End2: Thank you for taking this survey! Your chances of winning a bottle of wine are __!
96
Appendix F – MyExperience XML Mobile Phone Survey Protocol
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<myexperience name="EgoTest" version="1.0">
<!--Author: Anastasios Dimas: MIT | House_n Consortium | Workplace2 | Helsinki | Taivas (Ego)-->
<globals>
<property
<property
<property
<property
<property
<property
<property
<property
</globals>
name="MyExperienceIsDebug" value="true" type="System.Boolean"/>
name="RoomID" value="-1" type="System.Int32" />
name="PreviousRoom" value="-1" type="System.Int32" />
name="tStart" value="00:00:00" type="System.TimeSpan" />
name="Launch" value="false" type="System.Boolean" />
name="CounterReport" value="0" type="System.Int32" />
name="SurveyCompletedTime" value="00:00:00" type="System.TimeSpan" />
name="Timer" value="-1" type="System.Int32" />
<sensors>
<sensor name="StartSensor" type="MyExperienceInitializedSensor" />
<sensor name="BluetoothSensor" type="House_n.Sensors.BluetoothBeaconSensor" />
<!--Data Upload Time Sensor-->
<sensor name="TimeSensor" type="TimeSensor">
<property name="Resolution" value="Minute"/>
</sensor>
</sensors>
<actions>
<action name="SurveyIdea1" type="SurveyAction">
<!--If Idea button pressed while in Taivas-->
<property name="EntryQuestionId" value="Q01" />
<property name="TimeOutInterval" value="00:05:00" />
<property name="TimeOutText" value="You forgot to finish a survey. Press any key to finish it
now." />
<property name="TimeOutUseVibration" value="true" />
<property name="TimeOutUseSound" value="false" />
<property name="TimeOutUseLed" value="true" />
<property name="AllowBack" value="true" />
</action>
<action name="SurveyIdea2" type="SurveyAction">
<!--If Idea button pressed while out of Taivas-->
<property name="EntryQuestionId" value="Q00" />
<property name="TimeOutInterval" value="00:05:00" />
<property name="TimeOutText" value="You forgot to finish a survey. Press any key to finish it
now." />
<property name="TimeOutUseVibration" value="true" />
<property name="TimeOutUseSound" value="false" />
<property name="TimeOutUseLed" value="true" />
<property name="AllowBack" value="true" />
</action>
<action name="SurveyBarrier1" type="SurveyAction">
<!--If Barrier button pressed while in Taivas-->
<property name="EntryQuestionId" value="Q01" />
<property name="TimeOutInterval" value="00:05:00" />
<property name="TimeOutText" value="You forgot to finish a survey. Press any number key to finish
it now." />
<property name="TimeOutUseVibration" value="true" />
<property name="TimeOutUseSound" value="false" />
<property name="TimeOutUseLed" value="true" />
<property name="AllowBack" value="true" />
</action>
<action name="SurveyBarrier2" type="SurveyAction">
<!--If Barrier button pressed while out of Taivas-->
<property name="EntryQuestionId" value="Q00" />
<property name="TimeOutInterval" value="00:05:00" />
<property name="TimeOutText" value="You forgot to finish a survey. Press any number key to finish
it now." />
<property name="TimeOutUseVibration" value="true" />
97
<property name="TimeOutUseSound" value="false" />
<property name="TimeOutUseLed" value="true" />
<property name="AllowBack" value="true" />
</action>
<action name="SurveyPrompt" type="MessageAction">
<property name="Title" value="EGO | Helsinki | Workplace2" />
<property name="Text" value="Help improve your workspace. Report an idea or a barrier" />
<property name="FontTextSize" value="14.0" />
<property name="AlwaysOnTop" value="false" />
<property name="ShowTwoOptions" value="true" />
<property name="LeftButtonText" value="Idea!" />
<property name="RightButtonText" value="Barrier!" />
</action>
<action name="SurveyBluetooth" type="SurveyAction">
<property name="EntryQuestionId" value="Q01" />
<property name="TimeOutInterval" value="00:05:00" />
<property name="TimeOutText" value="You forgot to finish a survey. Press any number key to finish
it now." />
<property name="TimeOutUseVibration" value="true" />
<property name="TimeOutUseSound" value="false" />
<property name="TimeOutUseLed" value="true" />
<property name="AllowBack" value="true" />
</action>
<action name="CounterReport" type="NotificationAction">
<property name="Title" value="Counter Report" />
<property name="FontTextSize" value="14.0" />
<property name="DisplayInterval" value="00:00:30" />
<property name="AutoAppendDisplayIntervalCountdown" value="false" />
<property name="AutoAppendSnoozeCount" value="false" />
<property name="MaximumReminders" value="0" />
<property name="TurnOnScreen" value="false" />
<!--<property name="UseLed" value="false" />-->
<property name="UseSound" value="false" />
<property name="UseVibration" value="false" />
</action>
<action name="Upload" type="House_n.Web.DataSendAction">
<property name="UploadID" value="TAIK1"/>
</action>
<action name="PlaySoundAction" type="PlaySoundAction">
<property name="SoundFile" value="\Storage Card\notify.wav"/>
</action>
</actions>
<triggers>
<trigger name="StartTrigger" type="Trigger">
<script>
startSensorSnapshot = GetSensorStateSnapshot("StartSensor");
while (true){
prompt = CreateAction("SurveyPrompt");
location = GetGlobalProperty("RoomID");
if(location = -1){
//user is out of the office
if (prompt.Run() = "Yes"){
survey = CreateAction("SurveyIdea2");
survey.Run();
}
else{
survey = CreateAction("SurveyBarrier2");
survey.Run();
}
}
if(location != -1){
//user is in the office
if (prompt.Run() = "Yes"){
survey = CreateAction("SurveyIdea1");
survey.Run();
}
98
else{
survey = CreateAction("SurveyBarrier1");
survey.Run();
}
}
Log("info","try again");
}
</script>
</trigger>
<trigger name="BluetoothTrigger" type="Trigger">
<script>
Snap = GetSensorStateSnapshot("BluetoothSensor");
hashtable = Snap.StateEntered.Value;
previousRoom = GetGlobalProperty("RoomID");
SetGlobalProperty("PreviousRoom",previousRoom);
//Assumed location: Out of Taivas - Room-1
if((Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 1t") = false) and
(Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 2t") = false) and
(Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 3t") = false) and
(Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 4t") = false) and
(Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 5t") = false) and
(Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 6t") = false) and
(Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 7t") = false) and
(Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 8t") = false) and
(Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 9t") = false) and
(Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 10t") = false) and
(Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 11t") = false) and
(Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 12t") = false) and
(Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 13t") = false) and
(Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 14t") = false) and
(Contains(hashtable, "Nok 1t") = false) and
(Contains(hashtable, "Nok 2t") = false) and
(Contains(hashtable, "Nok 3t") = false) and
(Contains(hashtable, "Nok 4t") = false) and
(Contains(hashtable, "Nok 5t") = false) and
(Contains(hashtable, "Sam 1t") = false) and
(Contains(hashtable, "Sam 2t") = false) and
(Contains(hashtable, "Sam 3t") = false) and
(Contains(hashtable, "Sam 4t") = false) and
(Contains(hashtable, "Sam 8t") = false) and
(Contains(hashtable, "Sam 10t") = false))
{SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", -1);}
//Assumed location: Cafeteria - Room1
if(Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 1t") = true){SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 1);}
if(Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 13t") = true){SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 1);}
//Assumed location: PhotoShoot space - Room2
if((Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 2t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 7t") = true) and
(Contains(hashtable, "Nok 1t") = true))
{SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 2);}
//Assumed location: Lounge meeting1 - Room3
if(Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 3t") = true){SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 3);}
//Assumed location: Lounge meeting2 - Room4
if(Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 4t") = true){SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 4);}
//Assumed location: Meeting Room1 - Room5
if(Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 5t") = true){SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 5);}
if(Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 14t") = true){SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 5);}
//Assumed location: Meeting Room2 - Room6
if((Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 6t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 12t") = true))
{SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 6);}
if((Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 12t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Sam 1t") = true))
{SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 6);}
//Assumed location: Table lounge1 - Room7
if((Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 7t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 12t") = true))
99
{SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 7);}
//Assumed location: Desk - Room8
if((Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 7t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 8t") = true))
{SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 8);}
//Assumed location: Desk - Room9
if((Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 7t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 1t") = true)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 2t") = false))
{SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 9);}
if((Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 12t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 1t") = true)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 7t") = false) and (Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 9t") = false))
{SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 9);}
//Assumed location: Desk - Room10
if((Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 9t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 12t") = true))
{SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 10);}
//Assumed location: Desk - Room11
if((Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 12t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 9t") = false)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 10t") = false) and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 1t") = false)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 11t") = false))
{SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 11);}
//Assumed location: Desk - Room12
if((Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 10t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 12t") = true))
{SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 12);}
//Assumed location: Table Lounge2 - Room13
if((Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 11t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 12t") = true))
{SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 13);}
//Assumed location: Desk - Room14
if((Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 12t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Sam 1t") = true)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Sam 2t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Sam 3t") = false))
{SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 14);}
//Assumed location: Desk - Room15
if((Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 12t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Sam 1t") = true)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Sam 2t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Sam 3t") = true)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Sam 4t") = false))
{SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 15);}
//Assumed location: Desk - Room16
if((Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 12t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Sam 1t") = true)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Sam 2t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Sam 3t") = true)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Sam 4t") = true))
{SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 16);}
//Assumed location: Desk - Room17
if((Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 12t") = false) and (Contains(hashtable, "Sam 1t") = false)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Sam 2t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Sam 3t") = true)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Sam 4t") = true))
{SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 17);}
//Assumed location: Printer Lounge2 - Room18
if(Contains(hashtable, "Sam 8t") = true and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 3t") =
false)){SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 18);}
//Assumed location: Desk - Room19
if((Contains(hashtable, "Nok 1t") = false) and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 2t") = false)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 3t") = false) and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 4t") = true)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 5t") = true))
{SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 19);}
if((Contains(hashtable, "Nok 1t") = false) and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 2t") = false)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 3t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 4t") = true)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 5t") = true))
{SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 19);}
//Assumed location: Desk - Room20
if((Contains(hashtable, "Nok 1t") = false) and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 2t") = false)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 3t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 4t") = true)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 5t") = false))
{SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 20);}
100
if((Contains(hashtable, "Nok 1t") = false) and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 2t") = true)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 3t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 4t") = true)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 5t") = false))
{SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 20);}
if((Contains(hashtable, "Nok 1t") = false) and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 2t") = true)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 3t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 4t") = true)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 5t") = true))
{SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 20);}
//Assumed location: Desk - Room21
if((Contains(hashtable, "Nok 1t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 2t") = true)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 3t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 4t") = false)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 5t") = false))
{SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 21);}
if((Contains(hashtable, "Nok 1t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 2t") = false)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 3t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 4t") = true)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 5t") = false))
{SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 21);}
//Assumed location: Desk - Room22
if((Contains(hashtable, "Nok 1t") = true) and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 2t") = false)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 3t") = false) and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 4t") = true)
and (Contains(hashtable, "Nok 5t") = false) and (Contains(hashtable, "Beacon 12t") = false))
{SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 22);}
//Assumed location: Red couch - Room23
if(Contains(hashtable, "Sam 10t") = true){SetGlobalProperty("RoomID", 23);}
roomID = GetGlobalProperty("RoomID");
prevRoom = GetGlobalProperty("PreviousRoom");
if(prevRoom != roomID){
timer = 0;
SetGlobalProperty("Timer",timer);
if(roomID!= -1){
//Start timer
timeStart = GetTime();
SetGlobalProperty("tStart",timeStart);
//Creates a 15 minute delay, once Q01 or End1 or End2 pops, between prompts
//(no need to answer Q01 in order to work)
timeLastSurveyCompleted = GetGlobalProperty("SurveyCompletedTime");
timeCheck = GetTimeSpan("00:15:00");
timeTrigger = timeStart - timeLastSurveyCompleted;
if(timeTrigger > timeCheck){
if(roomID = 1){
timeLimit = 120;
}
else{
timeLimit = 600;
}
for i=0 to timeLimit{
timer = GetGlobalProperty("Timer");
timer = timer+1;
SetGlobalProperty("Timer",timer);
if (timer >= timeLimit){
SetGlobalProperty("Launch",true);
}
Sleep(1000);
}
launch = GetGlobalProperty("Launch");
if (launch = true){
if((IsActionExecuting("SurveyIdea1")= false)
and
(IsActionExecuting("SurveyIdea2")= false)
and
(IsActionExecuting("SurveyBarrier1")= false) and
(IsActionExecuting("SurveyBarrier2")= false) and
(IsActionExecuting("SurveyBluetooth")= false)){
101
SetGlobalProperty("Launch",false);
playerAction = CreateAction("PlaySoundAction");
playerAction.RunAsync();
Log("info","Run Survey1 from menu");
survey = CreateAction("SurveyBluetooth");
survey.Run();
}
}
}
}
}
</script>
</trigger>
<trigger name="TimeTrigger" type="Trigger">
<script>
timeSensorSnapshot = GetSensorStateSnapshot("TimeSensor");
minuteValue = timeSensorSnapshot.StateEntered.Value.Minutes;
if ((minuteValue % 15) = 0){
//Sends sdf and lof files to House_n server
upload = CreateAction("Upload");
upload.Run();
Log("info","try again");
}
</script>
</trigger>
<trigger name="TimeTrigger2" type="Trigger">
<script>
timeSensorSnapshot = GetSensorStateSnapshot("TimeSensor");
timeValue = timeSensorSnapshot.StateEntered.Value;
if(timeValue = "00:01:00"){
//Sets SurveyCounter to zero every Thursday midnight
cur_date = GetDateTime();
if(cur_date.DayOfWeek = "Thursday"){
counterValue = GetGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter");
SetGlobalProperty("CounterReport", counterValue);
SetGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter",0);
}
counterReport = GetGlobalProperty("CounterReport");
msgString = "Thank you for participating. Your weekly score is: " # counterReport;
report = CreateAction("CounterReport");
report.Text = msgString;
report.Run();
Log("info","try again");
}
</script>
</trigger>
</triggers>
<questions>
<!--Q00 | First question if out of beacon range and Idea/Barrier button pressed-->
<question id="Q00" text="Where were you?">
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option goto="Q04">In transit</option>
<option goto="Q01">Home</option>
<option goto="Q01">Restaurant/Bar/Cafe</option>
<option goto="Q01">Taivas</option>
<option goto="Q01">In public space</option>
<option goto="Q01">Other workplace</option>
<option goto="Q01">Other</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q01 | First question if in beacon range and Idea/Barrier button pressed-->
<question id="Q01" text="Were you engaged in activities:">
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
102
<option goto="Q03">Alone</option>
<option goto="Q02">With 1 other person</option>
<option goto="Q02">With 2 or more persons</option>
</options>
</response>
<script event = "OnLoad">
timeNow = GetTime();
SetGlobalProperty("SurveyCompletedTime", timeNow);
</script>
</question>
<!--Q02-->
<question id="Q02" text="Who were you with?\n(Pick all that apply)\nScroll down for more options">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q03" />
<response widget="CheckBoxList">
<options>
<option>Team member(s)</option>
<option>Colleague(s) outside my team</option>
<option>Client(s)</option>
<option>Boss</option>
<option>Friend</option>
<option>Family</option>
<option>Other</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q03-->
<question id="Q03" text="What were you doing?\n(name maximum 2 activities)">
<script event="OnComplete">
if(IsActionExecuting("SurveyIdea1")= true){
Goto("Q06a");
}
if(IsActionExecuting("SurveyBarrier1")= true){
Goto("Q06b");
}
if(IsActionExecuting("SurveyIdea2")= true){
Goto("Q06c");
}
if(IsActionExecuting("SurveyBarrier2")= true){
Goto("Q06d");
}
if(IsActionExecuting("SurveyBluetooth")= true){
Goto("Q06e");
}
</script>
<response widget="MultilineTextBox" />
</question>
<!--Q04 | Idea/Barrier Button in transit-->
<question id="Q04" text="How were you traveling?\nScroll down for more options">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q05" />
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Bus/ Tram/ Train</option>
<option>Driving</option>
<option>Bike</option>
<option>Walking</option>
<option>Other</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q05-->
<question id="Q05" text="Were you traveling alone?">
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option goto="Q03">Yes</option>
<option goto="Q02">No</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q06a | Idea button pressed within the office - SurveyIdea1-->
<question id="Q06a" text="Congratulations! You have just earned a chance to win a bottle of wine.
Would you like to have another chance?">
103
<script event="OnComplete">
//Set or increment Global Variable Counter by 1
if(ContainsGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter")=false){
SetGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter", 1);
}
else{
counterValue = GetGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter");
counterValue = counterValue+1;
SetGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter", counterValue);
}
answer = GetResponse();
answer1 = GetResponse("Q01");
if(answer = "No"){
Goto("End1");
}
else{
if(answer1 = "Alone"){
GotoRandom("Group1a"); //goes to Q07a1 or Q17a1
}
if(answer1 != "Alone" ){
GotoRandom("Group1b"); //goes to Q07a2 or Q07a3 or Q17a2 or Q23a
//added another version of Q07 (Q07a3) so that I have a 50% chance of it popping up
}
}
</script>
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Yes</option>
<option>No</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q06b | Barrier button pressed within the office - SurveyBarrier1-->
<question id="Q06b" text="Congratulations! You have just earned a chance to win a bottle of wine.
Would you like to have another chance?">
<script event="OnComplete">
//Set or increment Global Variable Counter by 1
if(ContainsGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter")=false){
SetGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter", 1);
}
else{
counterValue = GetGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter");
counterValue = counterValue+1;
SetGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter", counterValue);
}
answer = GetResponse();
answer1 = GetResponse("Q01");
if(answer = "No"){
Goto("End1");
}
else{
if(answer1 = "Alone"){
GotoRandom("Group2a"); //goes to Q14a1 or Q17b1
}
if(answer1 != "Alone" ){
GotoRandom("Group2b"); //goes to Q14a2 or Q14a3 or Q17b2 or Q23b
//added another version of Q14 (Q14a3) so that I have a 50% chance of it popping up
}
}
</script>
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Yes</option>
<option>No</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q06c | Idea button pressed outside the office - SurveyIdea2-->
<question id="Q06c" text="Congratulations! You have just earned a chance to win a bottle of wine.
Would you like to have another chance?">
104
<script event="OnComplete">
//Set or increment Global Variable Counter by 1
if(ContainsGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter")=false){
SetGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter", 1);
}
else{
counterValue = GetGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter");
counterValue = counterValue+1;
SetGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter", counterValue);
}
answer = GetResponse();
answer1 = GetResponse("Q00");
answer2 = GetResponse("Q01");
answer3 = GetResponse("Q05");
if(answer = "No"){
Goto("End1");
}
else{
if((answer1 = "In transit") and (answer3 = "Yes")){
Goto("Q07b1");
}
if((answer1 = "In transit") and (answer3 = "No")){
GotoRandom("Group3a"); //goes to Q07b1 or Q23c1
}
if((answer1 != "In transit") and (answer2 = "Alone")){
GotoRandom("Group3b"); //goes to Q07b2 or Q17c1
}
if((answer1 != "In transit") and (answer2 != "Alone")){
GotoRandom("Group3c"); //goes to Q07b3 or Q07b4 or Q17c2 or Q23c2
//added another version of Q07 (Q07b4) so that I have a 50% chance of it popping up
}
}
</script>
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Yes</option>
<option>No</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q06d | Barrier button pressed outside the office - SurveyBarrier2-->
<question id="Q06d" text="Congratulations! You have just earned a chance to win a bottle of wine.
Would you like to have another chance?">
<script event="OnComplete">
//Set or increment Global Variable Counter by 1
if(ContainsGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter")=false){
SetGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter", 1);
}
else{
counterValue = GetGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter");
counterValue = counterValue+1;
SetGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter", counterValue);
}
answer = GetResponse();
answer1 = GetResponse("Q00");
answer2 = GetResponse("Q01");
answer3 = GetResponse("Q05");
if(answer = "No"){
Goto("End1");
}
else{
if((answer1 = "In transit") and (answer3 = "Yes")){
Goto("Q14b1");
}
if((answer1 = "In transit") and (answer3 = "No")){
GotoRandom("Group4a"); //goes to Q14b1 or Q23d1
}
if((answer1 != "In transit") and (answer2 = "Alone")){
GotoRandom("Group4b"); //goes to Q14b2 or Q17d1
}
if((answer1 != "In transit") and (answer2 != "Alone")){
105
GotoRandom("Group4c"); //goes to Q14b3 or Q14b4 or Q17d2 or Q23d2
//added another version of Q14 (Q14b4) so that I have a 50% chance of it popping up
}
}
</script>
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Yes</option>
<option>No</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q06e | Bluetooth - SurveyBluetooth-->
<question id="Q06e" text="Congratulations! You have just earned a chance to win a bottle of wine.
Would you like to have another chance?">
<script event="OnComplete">
//Set or increment Global Variable Counter by 1
if(ContainsGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter")=false){
SetGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter", 1);
}
else{
counterValue = GetGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter");
counterValue = counterValue+1;
SetGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter", counterValue);
}
answer = GetResponse();
answer2 = GetResponse("Q01");
if(answer = "No"){
Goto("End1");
}
else{
if(answer2 = "Alone"){
Goto("Q17e");
}
if(answer2 != "Alone"){
GotoRandom("Group5"); //goes to Q17e or Q23e
}
}
</script>
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Yes</option>
<option>No</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q07a1 | Idea button pressed within the office - SurveyIdea1-->
<question id="Q07a1" text="Was this a: ">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q08" />
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group1a" />
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Big idea</option>
<option>Small idea</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q07a2 | Idea button pressed within the office - SurveyIdea1-->
<question id="Q07a2" text="Was this a: ">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q08" />
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group1b" />
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Big idea</option>
<option>Small idea</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q07a3 | Idea button pressed within the office - SurveyIdea1 - chance increase-->
<question id="Q07a3" text="Was this a: ">
106
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q08" />
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group1b" />
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Big idea</option>
<option>Small idea</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q07b1 | Idea button pressed outside the office - SurveyIdea2-->
<question id="Q07b1" text="Was this a: ">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q08" />
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group3a" />
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Big idea</option>
<option>Small idea</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q07b2 | Idea button pressed outside the office - SurveyIdea2-->
<question id="Q07b2" text="Was this a: ">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q08" />
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group3b" />
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Big idea</option>
<option>Small idea</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q07b3 | Idea button pressed outside the office - SurveyIdea2-->
<question id="Q07b3" text="Was this a: ">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q08" />
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group3c" />
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Big idea</option>
<option>Small idea</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q07b4 | Idea button pressed outside the office - SurveyIdea2 - chance increase-->
<question id="Q07b4" text="Was this a: ">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q08" />
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group3c" />
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Big idea</option>
<option>Small idea</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q08-->
<question id="Q08" text="Was this idea connected to a client brief?">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q09" />
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Yes</option>
<option>No</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q09-->
<question id="Q09" text="How long have you been working on this idea?">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q10" />
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Just got it</option>
<option>Not long</option>
107
<option>Sometime</option>
<option>Very long</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q10-->
<question id="Q10" text="How important were others \nin creating this idea?">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q11" />
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Essential</option>
<option>Important</option>
<option>Somewhat important</option>
<option>Not that important</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q11-->
<question id="Q11" text="Can you capture the situation that led to this idea?">
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option goto="Q12">Take a picture</option>
<option goto="Q13">Briefly describe in words</option>
<option goto="End2">Not at this time</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q12-->
<question id="Q12" text="">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="End2" />
<response widget="CameraWidget" />
</question>
<!--Q13-->
<question id="Q13" text="Describe the situation in 20 words or less.">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="End2" />
<response widget="MultilineTextBox" />
</question>
<!--Q14a1 | Barrier button pressed within the office - SurveyBarrier1-->
<question id="Q14a1" text="What was hindering you?\n(Pick all that apply)\nScroll down for more
options">
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group2a" />
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q15" />
<response widget="CheckBoxList">
<options>
<option>Person unavailable</option>
<option>Missing information</option>
<option>Equipment failure</option>
<option>Distraction</option>
<option>Uninspired</option>
<option>Too much work or stress</option>
<option>Too many tasks at the same time</option>
<option>Too tired or bad mood</option>
<option>Other</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q14a2 | Barrier button pressed within the office - SurveyBarrier1-->
<question id="Q14a2" text="What was hindering you?\n(Pick all that apply)\nScroll down for more
options">
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group2b" />
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q15" />
<response widget="CheckBoxList">
<options>
<option>Person unavailable</option>
<option>Missing information</option>
<option>Equipment failure</option>
<option>Distraction</option>
<option>Uninspired</option>
<option>Too much work or stress</option>
<option>Too many tasks at the same time</option>
108
<option>Too tired or bad mood</option>
<option>Other</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q14a3 | Barrier button pressed within the office - SurveyBarrier1 - chance increase-->
<question id="Q14a3" text="What was hindering you?\n(Pick all that apply)\nScroll down for more
options">
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group2b" />
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q15" />
<response widget="CheckBoxList">
<options>
<option>Person unavailable</option>
<option>Missing information</option>
<option>Equipment failure</option>
<option>Distraction</option>
<option>Uninspired</option>
<option>Too much work or stress</option>
<option>Too many tasks at the same time</option>
<option>Too tired or bad mood</option>
<option>Other</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q14b1 | Barrier button pressed within the office - SurveyBarrier1-->
<question id="Q14b1" text="What was hindering you?\n(Pick all that apply)\nScroll down for more
options">
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group4a" />
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q15" />
<response widget="CheckBoxList">
<options>
<option>Person unavailable</option>
<option>Missing information</option>
<option>Equipment failure</option>
<option>Distraction</option>
<option>Uninspired</option>
<option>Too much work or stress</option>
<option>Too many tasks at the same time</option>
<option>Too tired or bad mood</option>
<option>Other</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q14b2 | Barrier button pressed within the office - SurveyBarrier1-->
<question id="Q14b2" text="What was hindering you?\n(Pick all that apply)\nScroll down for more
options">
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group4b" />
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q15" />
<response widget="CheckBoxList">
<options>
<option>Person unavailable</option>
<option>Missing information</option>
<option>Equipment failure</option>
<option>Distraction</option>
<option>Uninspired</option>
<option>Too much work or stress</option>
<option>Too many tasks at the same time</option>
<option>Too tired or bad mood</option>
<option>Other</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q14b3 | Barrier button pressed within the office - SurveyBarrier1-->
<question id="Q14b3" text="What was hindering you?\n(Pick all that apply)\nScroll down for more
options">
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group4c" />
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q15" />
<response widget="CheckBoxList">
<options>
<option>Person unavailable</option>
<option>Missing information</option>
<option>Equipment failure</option>
109
<option>Distraction</option>
<option>Uninspired</option>
<option>Too much work or stress</option>
<option>Too many tasks at the same time</option>
<option>Too tired or bad mood</option>
<option>Other</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q14b4 | Barrier button pressed within the office - SurveyBarrier1 - chance increase-->
<question id="Q14b4" text="What was hindering you?\n(Pick all that apply)\nScroll down for more
options">
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group4c" />
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q15" />
<response widget="CheckBoxList">
<options>
<option>Person unavailable</option>
<option>Missing information</option>
<option>Equipment failure</option>
<option>Distraction</option>
<option>Uninspired</option>
<option>Too much work or stress</option>
<option>Too many tasks at the same time</option>
<option>Too tired or bad mood</option>
<option>Other</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q15-->
<question id="Q15" text="Were you frustrated?">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q16" />
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Not at all</option>
<option>A little</option>
<option>Somewhat</option>
<option>Very much</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q16-->
<question id="Q16" text="Can you capture the situation that hindered you?">
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option goto="Q12">Take a picture</option>
<option goto="Q13">Briefly describe in words</option>
<option goto="End2">Not at this time</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q17a1 | Idea button pressed within the office - SurveyIdea1-->
<question id="Q17a1" text="Why did you pick this space for your activities?\n(Pick all that
apply)\nScroll down for more options">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q18" />
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group1a" />
<response widget="CheckBoxList">
<options>
<option>It was my normal workspace</option>
<option>It was near/available</option>
<option>Needed bigger space</option>
<option>Needed presentation/ work tools</option>
<option>Needed access to info</option>
<option>Needed more privacy</option>
<option>Needed to be around others</option>
<option>Needed a change/stimuli</option>
<option>Other</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q17a2 | Idea button pressed within the office - SurveyIdea1-->
110
<question id="Q17a2" text="Why did you pick this space for your activities?\n(Pick all that
apply)\nScroll down for more options">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q18" />
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group1b" />
<response widget="CheckBoxList">
<options>
<option>It was my normal workspace</option>
<option>It was near/available</option>
<option>Needed bigger space</option>
<option>Needed presentation/ work tools</option>
<option>Needed access to info</option>
<option>Needed more privacy</option>
<option>Needed to be around others</option>
<option>Needed a change/stimuli</option>
<option>Other</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q17b1 | Barrier button pressed within the office - SurveyBarrier1-->
<question id="Q17b1" text="Why did you pick this space for your activities?\n(Pick all that
apply)\nScroll down for more options">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q18" />
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group2a" />
<response widget="CheckBoxList">
<options>
<option>It was my normal workspace</option>
<option>It was near/available</option>
<option>Needed bigger space</option>
<option>Needed presentation/ work tools</option>
<option>Needed access to info</option>
<option>Needed more privacy</option>
<option>Needed to be around others</option>
<option>Needed a change/stimuli</option>
<option>Other</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q17b2 | Barrier button pressed within the office - SurveyBarrier1-->
<question id="Q17b2" text="Why did you pick this space for your activities?\n(Pick all that
apply)\nScroll down for more options">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q18" />
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group2b" />
<response widget="CheckBoxList">
<options>
<option>It was my normal workspace</option>
<option>It was near/available</option>
<option>Needed bigger space</option>
<option>Needed presentation/ work tools</option>
<option>Needed access to info</option>
<option>Needed more privacy</option>
<option>Needed to be around others</option>
<option>Needed a change/stimuli</option>
<option>Other</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q17c1 | Idea button pressed outside the office - SurveyIdea2-->
<question id="Q17c1" text="Why did you pick this space for your activities?\n(Pick all that
apply)\nScroll down for more options">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q18" />
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group3b" />
<response widget="CheckBoxList">
<options>
<option>It was my normal workspace</option>
<option>It was near/available</option>
<option>Needed bigger space</option>
<option>Needed presentation/ work tools</option>
<option>Needed access to info</option>
<option>Needed more privacy</option>
<option>Needed to be around others</option>
<option>Needed a change/stimuli</option>
<option>Other</option>
</options>
111
</response>
</question>
<!--Q17c2 | Idea button pressed outside the office - SurveyIdea2-->
<question id="Q17c2" text="Why did you pick this space for your activities?\n(Pick all that
apply)\nScroll down for more options">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q18" />
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group3c" />
<response widget="CheckBoxList">
<options>
<option>It was my normal workspace</option>
<option>It was near/available</option>
<option>Needed bigger space</option>
<option>Needed presentation/ work tools</option>
<option>Needed access to info</option>
<option>Needed more privacy</option>
<option>Needed to be around others</option>
<option>Needed a change/stimuli</option>
<option>Other</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q17d1 | Barrier button pressed outside the office - SurveyBarrier2-->
<question id="Q17d1" text="Why did you pick this space for your activities?\n(Pick all that
apply)\nScroll down for more options">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q18" />
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group4b" />
<response widget="CheckBoxList">
<options>
<option>It was my normal workspace</option>
<option>It was near/available</option>
<option>Needed bigger space</option>
<option>Needed presentation/ work tools</option>
<option>Needed access to info</option>
<option>Needed more privacy</option>
<option>Needed to be around others</option>
<option>Needed a change/stimuli</option>
<option>Other</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q17d2 | Barrier button pressed outside the office - SurveyBarrier2-->
<question id="Q17d2" text="Why did you pick this space for your activities?\n(Pick all that
apply)\nScroll down for more options">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q18" />
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group4c" />
<response widget="CheckBoxList">
<options>
<option>It was my normal workspace</option>
<option>It was near/available</option>
<option>Needed bigger space</option>
<option>Needed presentation/ work tools</option>
<option>Needed access to info</option>
<option>Needed more privacy</option>
<option>Needed to be around others</option>
<option>Needed a change/stimuli</option>
<option>Other</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q17e | Bluetooth - SurveyBluetooth-->
<question id="Q17e" text="Why did you pick this space for your activities?\n(Pick all that
apply)\nScroll down for more options">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q18" />
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group5" />
<response widget="CheckBoxList">
<options>
<option>It was my normal workspace</option>
<option>It was near/available</option>
<option>Needed bigger space</option>
<option>Needed presentation/ work tools</option>
<option>Needed access to info</option>
<option>Needed more privacy</option>
112
<option>Needed to be around others</option>
<option>Needed a change/stimuli</option>
<option>Other</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q18-->
<question id="Q18" text="What was the most important spatial quality?\nScroll down for more
options">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q19" />
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Quiet</option>
<option>Peaceful</option>
<option>Good Lightning</option>
<option>Comfortable furniture</option>
<option>Nice materials/colors</option>
<option>Air quality</option>
<option>Room temperature</option>
<option>Other</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q19-->
<question id="Q19" text="What tools did you use?\n(Pick all that apply)\nScroll down for more
options">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q20" />
<response widget="CheckBoxList">
<options>
<option>Projector</option>
<option>White board</option>
<option>Wall space</option>
<option>Work table</option>
<option>Computer</option>
<option>Phone</option>
<option>Pen and paper</option>
<option>Other</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q20-->
<question id="Q20" text="How important was this space for your activities?">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q21" />
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Essential</option>
<option>Important</option>
<option>Somewhat important</option>
<option>Not that important</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q21-->
<question id="Q21" text="How much was this a productive use of your time overall?">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q22" />
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Very productive</option>
<option>Quite productive</option>
<option>Not much productive</option>
<option>Not at all productive</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q22-->
<question id="Q22" text="How much stress were you experiencing?">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="End2" />
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>A lot</option>
<option>Quite a bit</option>
113
<option>Not much</option>
<option>None</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q23a-->
<question id="Q23a" text="Was your interaction with others:">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q24" />
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group1b" />
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Scheduled</option>
<option>Accidental</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q23b-->
<question id="Q23b" text="Was your interaction with others:">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q24" />
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group2b" />
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Scheduled</option>
<option>Accidental</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q23c1-->
<question id="Q23c1" text="Was your interaction with others:">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q24" />
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group3a" />
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Scheduled</option>
<option>Accidental</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q23c2-->
<question id="Q23c2" text="Was your interaction with others:">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q24" />
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group3c" />
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Scheduled</option>
<option>Accidental</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q23d1-->
<question id="Q23d1" text="Was your interaction with others:">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q24" />
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group4a" />
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Scheduled</option>
<option>Accidental</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q23d2-->
<question id="Q23d2" text="Was your interaction with others:">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q24" />
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group4c" />
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Scheduled</option>
<option>Accidental</option>
</options>
</response>
114
</question>
<!--Q23e-->
<question id="Q23e" text="Was your interaction with others:">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q24" />
<property name="QuestionGroup" value="Group5" />
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Scheduled</option>
<option>Accidental</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q24-->
<question id="Q24" text="In interacting with others were you mostly:">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q25" />
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Proving info</option>
<option>Somewhat providing</option>
<option>Somewhat receiving</option>
<option>Receiving info</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--Q25-->
<question id="Q25" text="How important was this interaction for your current activities?">
<property name="NextQuestionId" value="Q21" />
<response widget="RadioButtonList">
<options>
<option>Essential</option>
<option>Important</option>
<option>Somewhat important</option>
<option>Not that important</option>
</options>
</response>
</question>
<!--End1 Message-->
<question id="End1" text="Thank you for taking this survey!\n\nYour chances of winning a bottle of
wine are @SurveyCounter!">
<parameter name = "SurveyCounter">return GetGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter");</parameter>
<response widget="EmptyWidget" />
<script event = "OnLoad">
timeNow = GetTime();
SetGlobalProperty("SurveyCompletedTime", timeNow);
</script>
</question>
<!--End2 Message-->
<question id="End2" text="Thank you for taking this survey!\n\nYour chances of winning a bottle of
wine are @SurveyCounter!">
<parameter name = "SurveyCounter">return GetGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter");</parameter>
<response widget="EmptyWidget" />
<script event = "OnLoad">
counter=GetGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter");
counter=counter+1;
SetGlobalProperty("SurveyCounter", counter);
timeNow = GetTime();
SetGlobalProperty("SurveyCompletedTime", timeNow);
</script>
</question>
</questions>
</myexperience>
115
Appendix G – Taivas Beacon Map
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<SerializableHashTable xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
_0012625CB6C5="Nok 1t"
_0017E5D1E03A="Nok 2t"
_00192D40102D="Nok 3t"
_0012D21B4C6C="Nok 4t"
_001979CC55D3="Nok 5t"
_0015DE00FC4C="Nok 6t"
_0021D2633806="Sam 1t"
_0021D2633804="Sam 2t"
_0021D2633872="Sam 3t"
_0021D263386D="Sam 4t"
_0021D2F417D1="Sam 5t"
_0021D227484F="Sam 6t"
_0021D263381A="Sam 7t"
_0023398DEF66="Sam 8t"
_0021D2F417C3="Sam 9t"
_0021D26338A3="Sam 10t"
_000EA5100645="Beacon 1t"
_000EA5100668="Beacon 2t"
_000EA5100669="Beacon 3t"
_000EA5100670="Beacon 4t"
_000EA5100671="Beacon 5t"
_000EA5100672="Beacon 6t"
_000EA5100675="Beacon 7t"
_000EA5100676="Beacon 8t"
_000EA5100677="Beacon 9t"
_000EA5100678="Beacon 10t"
_000EA5100679="Beacon 11t"
_000EA5100680="Beacon 12t"
_000EA5100644="Beacon 13t"
_000EA5100673="Beacon 14t"/>
116
Appendix H – Bluetooth Sensor for MyExperience (BeaconSensor.cs & BluetoothBeaconSensor.cs)
BeaconSensor.cs:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Text;
using InTheHand.Net.Sockets;
using InTheHand.Net;
using System.Resources;
using System.Reflection;
using System.Xml.Serialization;
using System.Collections;
using System.Xml.Schema;
using System.Xml;
using System.Threading;
using System.IO;
namespace House_n.Sensors
{
public class BeaconEventArgs : EventArgs
{
//private string _beaconID;
private SerializableHashTable _beaconIDs;
private object _sender;
public object Sender
{
get
{
return _sender;
}
}
public SerializableHashTable BeaconIDs
{
get
{
return _beaconIDs;
}
}
public BeaconEventArgs(object sender, SerializableHashTable beaconIDs)
{
_sender = sender;
_beaconIDs = beaconIDs;
}
}
117
public class BeaconSensor
{
private BluetoothClient client;
private ResourceManager manager;
private BluetoothDeviceInfo currentDevice = null;
private SerializableHashTable beaconPlaces;
private static string MAPPING_FILENAME = "beaconMap.xml";
public delegate void BeaconEventHandler(BeaconEventArgs data);
public event BeaconEventHandler NearBeacons;
private Thread sensorThread;
private bool killThread = false;
private int timer = 0;
private int previousRoom = -1;
private int roomID = -1;
private bool launchSurvey = false;
//Constructor
public BeaconSensor()
{
client = new BluetoothClient();
manager = new ResourceManager("beacons", Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly());
beaconPlaces = new SerializableHashTable();
readXML();
}
private BluetoothDeviceInfo[] discoverDevices()
{
return client.DiscoverDevices(8, false, false, true);
//Max no. of devices,bool authenticated, bool remembered, bool unknown
}
//Returns condition for launching Survey
public bool LaunchSurvey{
get{
return this.launchSurvey;
}
set{
this.launchSurvey = value;
}
}
//Returns the current location of the participant
public int RoomID{
get{
return this.roomID;
}
set{
this.roomID = value;
} }
118
//The loop that runs the asynchronous sensor
//Sets boolean variable launchSurvey for MyExperience
private void loop()
{
while (killThread == false)
{
BluetoothDeviceInfo[] beacons = discoverDevices();
if (beacons.Length > 0 && killThread == false)
{
SerializableHashTable nearbyBeacons = new SerializableHashTable();
foreach (BluetoothDeviceInfo info in beacons) {
if (beaconPlaces.ContainsKey(info.DeviceAddress.ToString())){
nearbyBeacons[info.DeviceAddress.ToString()] = beaconPlaces[info.DeviceAddress.ToString()];
}
else{
nearbyBeacons[info.DeviceAddress.ToString()] = "Unknown - " + info.DeviceName;
}
}
previousRoom = roomID;
roomID = getRoomID(nearbyBeacons);
if (previousRoom != roomID)
timer = 0;
else if (roomID!=-1)
timer += 20;
if ((timer / 20) == 30)
launchSurvey = true;
if (killThread == false)
NearBeacons(new BeaconEventArgs(this, nearbyBeacons));
}
//takes approx 10 seconds to discover. Sleeps for 20 seconds between each discovery
for (int ii = 0; ii < 400; ii++){
if (killThread) //set true if Stop() is called
break;
Thread.Sleep(50);
}
}
}
public void Start(){
if (sensorThread != null)
return;
lock (this)
{
killThread = false;
sensorThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(loop));
sensorThread.Start();
}
}
119
public void SetName(string beacon, string name){
beaconPlaces[beacon] = name;
writeXML();//relatively cheap, since it will be quite rare.
}
public void Stop(){
if (sensorThread == null)
return;
lock (this){
killThread = true;
sensorThread.Join();
sensorThread = null;
}
writeXML();
}
private void readXML(){
try{
FileInfo mapFileInfo = new FileInfo(Assembly.GetCallingAssembly().GetName().CodeBase.Substring(0,
Assembly.GetCallingAssembly().GetName().CodeBase.LastIndexOf('\\')) + "\\" + MAPPING_FILENAME);
if (!mapFileInfo.Exists)
return;
XmlSerializer serializer = new XmlSerializer(typeof(SerializableHashTable));
StreamReader reader = new StreamReader(
Assembly.GetCallingAssembly().GetName().CodeBase.Substring(0,
Assembly.GetCallingAssembly().GetName().CodeBase.LastIndexOf('\\')) + "\\" + MAPPING_FILENAME);
XmlReader xmlReader = XmlReader.Create(reader.BaseStream);
if (serializer.CanDeserialize(xmlReader))
{
beaconPlaces = (SerializableHashTable)serializer.Deserialize(xmlReader);
//remove extraneous xml stuff
beaconPlaces.Remove("xmlns:xsi");
beaconPlaces.Remove("xmlns:xsd");
}
xmlReader.Close();
reader.Close();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw new Exception("Mapping file " + MAPPING_FILENAME + " exists but couldn't be
parsed. This usually means that the file is not well-formed XML");
}
}
private void writeXML(){
XmlSerializer serializer = new XmlSerializer(typeof(SerializableHashTable));
StreamWriter writer = new
StreamWriter(Assembly.GetCallingAssembly().GetName().CodeBase.Substring(0,
Assembly.GetCallingAssembly().GetName().CodeBase.LastIndexOf('\\')) + "\\" + MAPPING_FILENAME);
serializer.Serialize(writer.BaseStream, beaconPlaces);
writer.Close();
}
120
// Determines user's position (room) based on detected beacons
int getRoomID(SerializableHashTable nearbybeacons)
{
//roomID = -1 : Assumed location: out of Taivas
//Assumed location: Cafeteria - Room1
//000EA5100645="Beacon 1t", 000EA5100644="Beacon 13t"
if (nearbybeacons.ContainsKey("000EA5100645") == true)
return 1;
else if (nearbybeacons.ContainsKey("000EA5100644") == true)
return 1;
//Assumed location: PhotoShoot space - Room2
//000EA5100668="Beacon 2t", 000EA5100675="Beacon 7t", 0012625CB6C5="Nok 1t"
else if ((nearbybeacons.ContainsKey("000EA5100668") == true) &&
(nearbybeacons.ContainsKey("000EA5100675") == true)
&& (nearbybeacons.ContainsKey("0012625CB6C5") == true))
return 2;
//Sample Look-up table – Rooms 3-21 are omitted
//Assumed location: Desk - Room22
//000EA5100680="Beacon 12t", 0012625CB6C5="Nok 1t", 0017E5D1E03A="Nok 2t",
00192D40102D="Nok 3t", 0012D21B4C6C="Nok 4t", 001979CC55D3="Nok 5t"
else if ((nearbybeacons.ContainsKey("0012625CB6C5") == true) &&
(nearbybeacons.ContainsKey("0017E5D1E03A") == false)
&& (nearbybeacons.ContainsKey("00192D40102D") == false) &&
(nearbybeacons.ContainsKey("0012D21B4C6C") == true)
&& (nearbybeacons.ContainsKey("001979CC55D3") == false) &&
(nearbybeacons.ContainsKey("000EA5100680") == false))
return 21;
//Out of bluetooth range
return -1;
}
}
121
public class SerializableHashTable : IXmlSerializable
{
Hashtable _hashtable;
public SerializableHashTable()
{
_hashtable = new Hashtable();
}
public string this[string key]
{
get
{
return (string)_hashtable[key];
}
set
{
_hashtable[key] = value;
}
}
public void Remove(string key)
{
_hashtable.Remove(key);
}
public XmlSchema GetSchema()
{
return null;
}
public void WriteXml(XmlWriter writer)
{
foreach (string key in _hashtable.Keys)
{
string writeKey = key;
string writeValue = (string)_hashtable[key];
if (Char.IsDigit(writeKey[0]))
writeKey = "_" + writeKey;
if (Char.IsDigit(writeValue[0]))
writeValue = "_" + writeValue;
writer.WriteAttributeString(writeKey, writeValue);
}
}
122
public void ReadXml(XmlReader reader)
{
Hashtable newTable = new Hashtable();
while (reader.MoveToNextAttribute())
{
string name = reader.Name;
string value = reader.Value;
if (name.Length >= 2 && name[0] == '_' && Char.IsDigit(name[1]))
name = name.Substring(1);
if (value.Length >= 2 && name[0] == '_' && Char.IsDigit(value[1]))
value = value.Substring(1);
newTable[name] = value;
}
_hashtable = newTable;
}
public bool ContainsKey(string key)
{
return _hashtable.ContainsKey(key);
}
public ICollection Keys
{
get
{
return _hashtable.Keys;
}
}
public override string ToString()
{
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
foreach (string key in _hashtable.Keys)
{
sb.Append(key).Append(":").Append(_hashtable[key]).Append(",");
}
if (sb.Length == 0)
return "";
else
return sb.ToString(0, sb.Length -2);
}
}
}
123
BluetoothBeaconSensor.cs
using
using
using
using
using
System;
System.Collections.Generic;
System.Text;
MyExperience.Actions;
MyExperience.Utils;
using MyExperience.Sensors;
namespace House_n.Sensors
{
class BluetoothBeaconSensor : Sensor
{
//
//
//
//
MyExperience sets the Bluetooth sensor as a BluetoothBeaconSensor :
<sensor name="BluetoothSensor" type="House_n.Sensors.BluetoothBeaconSensor" />
and calls it within the Bluetooth Trigger :
Snap = GetSensorStateSnapshot("BluetoothSensor");
private BeaconSensor beaconSensor;
private string Room;
public override Type StateType{
get { return typeof(string); }
}
public BluetoothBeaconSensor(){
beaconSensor = new BeaconSensor();
beaconSensor.NearBeacons += new
BeaconSensor.BeaconEventHandler(OnBeaconsDetected);
}
void OnBeaconsDetected(BeaconEventArgs eventArgs){
Room = Convert.ToString(this.beaconSensor.RoomID);
string state = eventArgs.BeaconIDs.ToString() + " Room " + Room;
OnStateEntered(new State(state));
}
protected override State StartSensor(){
beaconSensor.Start();
return State.Initial;
}
protected override void StopSensor(){
beaconSensor.Stop();
}
public bool getLaunchSurvey(){
return this.beaconSensor.LaunchSurvey;
}
public void setLaunchSurvey(bool value){
this.beaconSensor.LaunchSurvey = value;
}
}
}
124
Appendix I – Taivas Bluetooth Beacon Look-up table
ROOMID
SPACE DESCRIPTION
FLOOR
BLUETOOTH BEACON COMBINATIONS PER ROOM (Total: 40)
1 (Detection Probability >0.8)
2 (Detection Probability>0.5)
3 (Detection Probabilty>0.3)
B1
B13
ROOM 1
CAFETERIA
3
ROOM2
PHOTOSHOOT SPACE
2
B2+B7+NOK1
ROOM3
LOUNGE MEETING 1
2
B3
ROOM4
LOUNGE MEETING 2
2
B4
ROOM5
MEETING ROOM 1
2
B5
B14
ROOM6
MEETING ROOM 2
2
B6+B12
B12+SAM1
ROOM7
TABLE LOUNGE 1
1
B7+B12
B7+B12+NOK1
B7+B12+NOK1+NOK4
ROOM8
DESK1
1
B7+B8
B7+B8+B12
B7+B8+NOK1
ROOM9
DESK2
1
B7+NOK1
B12+NOK1
ROOM10
DESK3
1
B9+B12
B9+B12+NOK1
ROOM11
DESK4 - ON ITS OWN
1
B12
ROOM12
DESK5
1
B10+B12
ROOM13
TABLE LOUNGE 2
1
B11+B12
ROOM14
DESK6
1
B12+SAM1+SAM2
ROOM15
DESKS
1
B12+SAM1+SAM2+SAM3
ROOM16
DESKS
1
B12+SAM1+SAM2+SAM3+SAM4
ROOM17
DESKS
1
SAM2+SAM3+SAM4
ROOM18
PRINTER LOUNGE
2
SAM8
SAM8+NOK4
ROOM19
DESK
1
NOK4+NOK5
NOK3+NOK4+NOK5
ROOM20
DESK
1
NOK3+NOK4
NOK2+NOK3+NOK4
ROOM21
DESK
1
NOK1+NOK2+NOK3
NOK1+NOK3+NOK4
ROOM22
DESK
1
ROOM23
RED COUCH AREA
2
SAM10
Beacon 1 = B1, Beacon 2 = B2, etc | Samsung 1 = SAM1, Samsung 2 = SAM2, etc | Nokia 1 = NOK1, Nokia 2 = NOK2, etc
B10+B12+SAM1
SAM1+SAM2+SAM4
SAM1+SAM2 / SAM2+SAM4
NOK2+NOK3+NOK4+NOK5
NOK1+NOK4
ROOM19 NOK1
FALSE
FALSE
revised
FALSE
NOK2
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
NOK3
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
NOK4
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
NOK5
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
ROOM20 NOK1
FALSE
FALSE
FALSE
revised
FALSE
revised
FALSE
NOK2
FALSE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
NOK3
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
TRUE
NOK4
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
TRUE
FALSE
NOK5
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
FALSE
ROOM21 NOK1
TRUE
TRUE
NOK1
ROOM22
TRUE
NOK2
TRUE
FALSE
NOK3
TRUE
TRUE
NOK4
FALSE
TRUE
NOK5
FALSE
FALSE
NOK2
NOK3
NOK4
NOK5
FALSE
FALSE
TRUE
FALSE
LOOK-UP TABLE SAMPLE
125
Second Floor
Third Floor
126
Appendix J – Participants’ Response Rates for Week 1
USER ID
Number of
Prompts
TAIK1
TAIK2
TAIK3
TAIK4
TAIK5
TAIK6
TAIK7
TAIK8
TAIK9
TAIK10
TAIK11
WEEKLY AVERAGE
DAILY AVERAGE
DAYS RUNNING:
96
104
65
41
258
149
131
144
164
5
80
112.45
22.49
5
10
38
45
6
21
20
8
10
27
3
3
17.36
3.47
2
0
12
2
6
3
3
3
12
1
1
4.09
0.82
Number
of
Prompts
Answered
Bluetooth
Surveys
Continued
Bluetooth
Surveys
Timed Out
Bluetooth
Surveys
Percentage of
Answered
Bluetooth Surveys
Percentage of
Continued
Bluetooth Surveys
day1
22
4
1
18
0.18
0.25
day2
9
0
0
9
0.00
0.00
day3
42
3
1
39
0.07
0.33
day4
23
3
0
20
0.13
0.00
96
10
2
86
24.00
2.50
0.50
21.50
0.10
0.15
day1
17
11
0
6
0.65
0
day2
20
8
0
12
0.40
0
day3
31
6
0
25
0.19
0
day4
16
7
0
9
0.44
0
day5
20
6
0
14
0.30
0
TOTAL
DAILY
AVERAGE
104
38
0
66
20.80
7.60
0.00
13.20
0.40
0.00
day1
15
10
4
5
0.67
0.40
day2
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
day3
29
19
4
10
0.66
0.21
day4
18
15
4
3
0.83
0.27
day5
3
1
0
2
0.33
0.00
TOTAL
DAILY
AVERAGE
65
45
12
20
13.00
9.00
2.40
4.00
0.72
0.22
USER ID
Answered
Continued
Timed Out
Bluetooth Surveys Bluetooth Surveys Bluetooth Surveys
86
66
20
35
237
129
123
134
137
2
80
95.36
19.07
Percentage of Answered
Bluetooth Surveys
Percentage of Continued
Bluetooth Surveys
Participant
Start Date
10%
37%
69%
15%
8%
13%
6%
7%
16%
60%
4%
22%
0.20
0.00
0.27
0.33
0.29
0.15
0.38
0.30
0.44
0.33
0.33
0.27
5/25/2009
5/25/2009
5/25/2009
5/25/2009
5/25/2009
5/25/2009
5/25/2009
5/25/2009
5/25/2009
5/26/2009
5/26/2009
TAIK1
day5
TOTAL
DAILY
AVERAGE
TAIK2
TAIK3
127
TAIK4
day1
13
3
1
10
0.23
0.33
day2
22
2
1
20
0.09
0.50
day3
0
0
0
0
day4
5
1
0
4
0.20
0.00
day5
1
0
0
1
0.00
TOTAL
DAILY
AVERAGE
41
6
2
35
8.20
1.20
0.40
7.00
0.13
0.28
day1
45
6
1
39
0.13
0.17
day2
50
4
1
46
0.08
0.25
day3
73
4
0
69
0.05
0.00
day4
50
6
3
44
0.12
0.50
day5
40
1
1
39
0.03
1.00
TOTAL
DAILY
AVERAGE
258
21
6
237
51.60
4.20
1.20
47.40
0.08
0.38
day1
36
9
1
27
0.25
0.11
day2
61
4
0
57
0.07
0.00
day3
38
5
1
33
0.13
0.20
day4
14
2
1
12
0.14
0.50
day5
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
DAILY
AVERAGE
149
20
3
129
29.80
4.00
0.60
25.80
0.15
0.20
day1
30
3
2
27
0.10
0.67
day2
47
3
1
44
0.06
0.33
day3
18
1
0
17
0.06
0.00
day4
34
1
0
33
0.03
0.00
day5
2
0
0
2
0.00
TOTAL
DAILY
AVERAGE
131
8
3
123
26.20
1.60
0.60
24.60
0.05
0.25
day1
33
3
2
30
0.09
0.67
day2
0
0
0
0
day3
31
3
1
28
0.10
0.33
day4
51
1
0
50
0.02
0.00
day5
29
3
0
26
0.10
0.00
TOTAL
144
10
3
134
TAIK5
TAIK6
TAIK7
TAIK8
128
DAILY
AVERAGE
28.80
2.00
0.60
26.80
0.08
0.33
47
9
4
38
0.19
0.44
day2
7
3
1
4
0.43
0.33
day3
63
8
5
55
0.13
0.63
day4
44
5
2
39
0.11
0.40
day5
3
2
0
1
0.67
0.00
TOTAL
DAILY
AVERAGE
164
27
12
137
32.80
5.40
2.40
27.40
0.31
0.36
day2
3
3
1
0
1.00
0.33
day3
1
0
0
1
0.00
day4
0
0
0
0
day5
1
0
0
1
TOTAL
DAILY
AVERAGE
5
3
1
2
1.25
0.75
0.25
0.50
1.00
0.33
day2
9
2
1
7
0.22
0.50
day3
0
0
0
0
day4
44
0
0
44
0.00
day5
30
1
0
29
0.03
0.00
TOTAL
DAILY
AVERAGE
83
3
1
80
20.75
0.75
0.25
20.00
0.09
0.25
TAIK9
day1
TAIK10
day1
0.00
TAIK11
day1
129
Appendix K – Participants’ data: Ideas, Barriers and Bluetooth Survey Results
Participant ID
No. of recorded ideas being alone
No. of recorded ideas interacting with others
Total No. of Recorded
Ideas
No. of recorded Barriers being alone
No. of recorded Barriers interacting with others
Total No. of Recorded
Barriers
No. of answered
Bluetooth Surveys
No. of Total Surveys
Completed
TAIK1
TAIK2
TAIK3
TAIK4
TAIK5
TAIK6
TAIK7
TAIK8
TAIK9
TAIK10
TAIK11
2
1
9
3
1
3
5
3
1
0
3
2
1
5
2
1
0
3
2
3
0
5
4
2
14
5
2
3
8
5
4
0
8
1
6
6
0
3
0
2
0
2
1
7
2
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
4
3
7
10
0
3
0
2
0
5
1
11
42
10
77
53
19
26
30
11
18
40
3
13
300
17
86
77
24
31
33
21
23
49
4
32
397
No. of Continued Surveys
Percentage of Continued
Surveys
5
0
28
4
12
3
3
5
25
1
13
99
29%
0%
36%
17%
39%
9%
14%
22%
51%
25%
41%
25%
13
15
27
9
10
9
8
9
10
2
16
N/A
2
NO
0
NO
4
NO
0
NO
0
NO
0
NO
0
NO
0
NO
0
NO
0
NO
0
6
Participant ID
Morning
Noon
Afternoon
Evening
Night
TAIK1
3
0
1
0
0
TAIK2
2
0
0
0
0
TAIK3
9
3
2
0
0
TAIK7
4
4
0
0
0
TAIK8
4
1
0
0
0
TAIK9
3
1
0
0
0
TAIK10
0
0
0
0
0
TAIK11
4
4
0
0
0
Total
35
17
3
0
0
Participant ID
Taivas
Other Workplace
Home
Restaurant/Bar/Cafe
In Transit
In Public Space
TAIK1
4
0
0
0
0
0
TAIK2
1
1
0
0
0
0
TAIK3
8
0
3
1
1
1
TAIK7
8
0
0
0
0
0
TAIK8
5
0
0
0
0
0
TAIK9
4
0
0
0
0
0
TAIK10
0
0
0
0
0
0
TAIK11
5
2
0
0
1
0
Total
43
3
4
1
2
2
Participant ID
Morning
Noon
Afternoon
Evening
Night
TAIK1
3
0
0
0
0
TAIK2
5
2
0
0
0
TAIK3
6
2
2
0
0
TAIK7
1
1
0
0
0
TAIK8
0
0
0
0
0
TAIK9
4
1
0
0
0
TAIK10
0
0
1
0
0
TAIK11
9
2
0
0
0
Total
31
8
3
0
0
Participant ID
Taivas
Other Workplace
Home
Restaurant/Bar/Cafe
In Transit
In Public Space
TAIK1
3
0
0
0
0
0
TAIK2
5
0
2
0
0
0
TAIK3
8
0
0
1
1
0
TAIK7
2
0
0
0
0
0
TAIK8
0
0
0
0
0
0
TAIK9
5
0
0
0
0
0
TAIK10
1
0
0
0
0
0
TAIK11
11
0
0
0
0
0
Total
38
0
2
1
1
0
No. of Unique recorded
activities
Participant used phone
over the weekend
No. of photos taken
Timing of Ideas
TAIK4
TAIK5
TAIK6
3
1
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Location of Ideas
TAIK4
TAIK5
TAIK6
3
2
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Timing of Barriers
TAIK4
TAIK5
TAIK6
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Location of Barriers
TAIK4
TAIK5
TAIK6
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
55
130
Participant ID
Team members
Colleague(s) outside my
team
Family members
Friends
Clients
Other
Alone
Total
Participant ID
Team members
Colleague(s) outside my
team
Boss
Family members
Friends
Clients
Other
Alone
Total
Team1
Team2
Social Context - Recorded Ideas when engaged in activities with others and alone
TAIK1
TAIK2
TAIK3
TAIK4
TAIK5
TAIK6
TAIK7
TAIK8
TAIK9
1
0
3
1
1
0
2
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
2
4
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
1
0
0
9
14
1
0
0
0
0
3
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
1
0
0
0
0
5
8
0
0
0
0
0
3
5
0
0
0
0
1
1
4
Social Context - Recorded Barriers when engaged in activities with others and alone
TAIK1
TAIK2
TAIK3
TAIK4
TAIK5
TAIK6
TAIK7
TAIK8
TAIK9
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
6
7
1
0
0
0
0
0
6
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
2
7*
TAIK10
0
TAIK11
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
8
TAIK10
0
TAIK11
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
7
12*
No Team *7, 12 are actually 5 and 11 – this is because participants TAIK9 and TAIK11
reported being with team members and colleagues concurrently when facing a barrier in two occasions.
Idea Recordings for which the participant chose to provide more information by answering the second part of the survey
Participant ID
Times being able to
describe ideas described in words
Times being able to
describe ideas - picture
taken
Times being unable to
describe ideas
Diverted to Social /
Spatial Branches
TAIK1
TAIK2
TAIK3
TAIK4
TAIK5
TAIK6
TAIK7
TAIK8
TAIK9
TAIK10
TAIK11
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
2
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
Barrier Recordings for which the participant chose to provide more information by answering the second part of the survey
Participant ID
Times being able to
describe barriers described in words
Times being able to
describe barriers picture taken
Times being unable to
describe barriers
Diverted to Social /
Spatial Branches
TAIK1
TAIK2
TAIK3
TAIK4
TAIK5
TAIK6
TAIK7
TAIK8
TAIK9
TAIK10
TAIK11
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
5
131
Types of Recorded Barriers
Recorded Barriers
Equipment Failure
Missing information
Person unavailable
Tired / Bad mood
Conflict with colleague
Poor Air quality
Lack of Focus
Too much work or stress
TAIK1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
TAIK2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
4am - 6am
6am - 8am
8am - 10am
10am - 12pm
12pm - 2pm
2pm - 4pm
4pm - 6pm
Ideas
0
0
2
1
1
0
0
4
Barriers
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
3
4am - 6am
6am - 8am
8am - 10am
10am - 12pm
12pm - 2pm
2pm - 4pm
4pm - 6pm
Ideas
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
3
TAIK5
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TAIK6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ideas
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
Barriers
2
1
1
1
2
0
0
7
Ideas
0
3
4
2
3
0
2
14
Barriers
0
1
0
5
1
1
2
10
Barriers
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ideas
0
0
2
2
4
0
0
8
Barriers
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
Ideas
0
3
0
1
1
0
0
5
TAIK7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Barriers
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TAIK8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TAIK4
Ideas
0
1
1
1
2
0
0
5
Break-down of idea-recording times
TAIK7
TAIK8
TAIK6
Time of Ideas
TAIK4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Break-down of idea-recording times
TAIK2
TAIK3
TAIK1
Time of Ideas
TAIK3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Barriers
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Barriers
0
0
3
1
1
0
0
5
TAIK10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TAIK5
Ideas
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
TAIK9
Ideas
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
4
TAIK9
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
1
Barriers
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
3
TAIK6
Ideas
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
3
TAIK10
Ideas
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Barriers
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
TAIK11
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
Barriers
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TAIK11
Ideas
0
4
0
0
4
0
0
8
Barriers
0
1
6
2
2
0
0
11
TAIK11
Reasons for choosing spaces
Participant ID
It was my normal
workspace
TAIK1
x
TAIK2
TAIK3
TAIK4
TAIK5
TAIK6
TAIK7
TAIK8
TAIK9
TAIK10
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
It was near/available
Needed bigger space
Needed presentation/
work tools
x
x
x
Needed access to info
Needed more privacy
Needed to be around
others
Needed a change/stimuli
Other
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
132
Appendix L – Translation of Participant’s Activities
Participant TAIK1
Recorded Activity
Translated Activity
Unique Activities
Occurrences
trying to think
thinking
thinking
4
listening to advices
listening to someone
listening to someone
2
thinking
thinking
trying to focus
1
listening
listening to someone
drawing
3
trying to focus
trying to focus
having coffee
1
drawing
drawing
searching information
2
drawing
drawing
looking for an environment change
1
trying to focus
trying to focus
trying to work
1
having coffee
having coffee
listening to music
1
thinking
thinking
taking pictures
1
trying to find info
searching information
talking
2
looking for an environment change
trying to work but no proper
equipment!
looking for an environment change
too much hassle
1
trying to work
stressing
1
listening to top gun soundtrack
listening to music
taking pictures
taking pictures
talking
talking
web search
trying to find info
drawing
drawing
talking
talking
thinking
thinking
too much hassle
too much hassle
stress
stressing
Participant TAIK2
Recorded Activity
Translated Activity
Unique Activities
Occurrences
visualizing layouts
designing
designing
lay outing
designing
having lunch
lay outing
designing
configuring firmware
12
lunch
having lunch
e-mailing
15
lay outing
designing
trying to focus
1
lay outing
designing
contacting
1
lay outing
designing
in a meeting
2
ui-designing
designing
promoting sites
2
ui-designing
designing
downloading
2
ui-designing
designing
guide lining
8
ui-designing
designing
projecting
2
33
1
133
ui-designing
designing
setting up
2
configuring firmware
configuring firmware
updating
1
reading e-mails
e-mailing
reviewing information
1
planning site designs
designing
translating
1
fine tuning a web site
designing
e-mailing
e-mailing
e-mailing
e-mailing
e-mailing
e-mailing
trying to concentrate working
trying to focus
e-mailing
e-mailing
lay outing
designing
lay outing
designing
lay outing
designing
tuning site
designing
lay outing
designing
lay outing
designing
contacting
contacting
e-mailing
e-mailing
arranging materials
designing
web optimizing
designing
configuring
configuring firmware
configuring
configuring firmware
in a meeting
in a meeting
e-mailing
e-mailing
meeting
in a meeting
configuring
configuring firmware
configuring
configuring firmware
promoting sites
promoting sites
planning
designing
downloading
downloading
configuring
configuring firmware
configuring
configuring firmware
promoting
promoting sites
planning
designing
configuring
configuring firmware
configuring
configuring firmware
configuring
configuring firmware
guide lining
guide lining
guide lining
guide lining
guide lining
guide lining
guide lining
guide lining
134
guidance
guide lining
guide lining
guide lining
guide lining
guide lining
e-mailing
e-mailing
projecting
projecting
setting up
setting up
projecting
projecting
e-mailing
e-mailing
e-mailing
e-mailing
downloading materials
downloading
e-mailing
e-mailing
setting up
setting up
planning
designing
planning
designing
e-mailing
e-mailing
planning
designing
configuring
configuring firmware
e-mailing
e-mailing
guide lining
guide lining
configuring
configuring firmware
planning
designing
lay outing
designing
e-mailing
e-mailing
lay outing
designing
lay outing
designing
updating
updating
internal info
reviewing information
e-mailing
e-mailing
lay outing
designing
translating
translating
planning
designing
planning
designing
Participant TAIK3
Recorded Activity
Translated Activity
Unique Activities
Occurrences
drinking coffee
walking through a park while eating
ice-cream
having coffee
having coffee
2
on a stroll
on a stroll
1
procrastinating
procrastinating
procrastinating
1
youtube
watching videos
watching videos
2
3d modeling a logo
designing
designing
32
135
modeling
designing
relaxing
1
modeling
designing
resting in bed
1
modeling
designing
thinking
2
3d modeling a logo
designing
discussing
6
3d modeling
designing
solving problems
1
logo 3d modeling
designing
having lunch
1
modeling
designing
surfing the web
5
modeling a logo
designing
listening to music
1
relaxing
relaxing
chatting
1
sleeping, resting in bed.
resting in bed
walking
1
thinking about going to work
i was briefing a flash designer and
discussing about it with the project
manager.
walking around the office. solving
technical problems with team
members.
thinking
playing a game
1
discussing
in a café
1
solving problems
waiting
2
lunch
having lunch
brushing teeth
2
briefing subcontractor.
discussing
reviewing information
3
working on a simple web application.
designing
blogging
1
discussing about project.
discussing
having fun
1
photoshopping
designing
video editing
3
photoshopping a web layout.
designing
drinking
1
photoshopping
designing
online shopping
1
layout and design.
designing
in a meeting
1
lay outing
designing
negotiating
1
lay outing
designing
layout, Photoshop
designing
lay outing and reading mail
designing
surfing the internet
surfing the web
lay outing
designing
using facebook to further my career
surfing the web
surfing on the web
surfing the web
surfing on the web
surfing the web
listening to top gun soundtrack
positioning buttons to a webpage with
a team member
listening to music
web design
designing
web design
designing
discussing concept and layout
discussing
discussing about web development.
discussing
chatting
chatting
thinking
thinking
walking
walking
designing
136
waiting
waiting
playing a game
playing a game
sitting in cafe waiting
waiting for my food as I understood
how something works
brushing teeth whilst I got an idea
about one brochure
brushing teeth whilst I got an idea
about one brochure
in a café
updating the Taivas blog.
reviewing information
blogging
blogging
going through stock video for a project
reviewing information
designing web
designing
web design
designing
getting coffee
having coffee
watching youtube
watching videos
designing web
designing
web design
designing
web design
designing
coffee
having coffee
web design
designing
having fun
having fun
video editing
video editing
drinking
drinking
video edit
video editing
waiting for render to complete
designing
shopping for groceries
online shopping
editing a video
video editing
illustrating
designing
discussing about the future
discussing
designing
designing
administrating Taivas blog
reviewing information
in a meeting
in a meeting
savings negotiations
negotiating
planning
designing
going through a webpage
surfing the web
waiting
brushing teeth
brushing teeth
Participant TAIK4
Activity
Translated Activity
Unique Activities
Occurrences
planning and writing an article
writing
writing
5
writing
writing
having lunch
2
eating lunch
having lunch
sending information
2
writing an article
writing
designing
6
137
sending a copy to a client
sending information
reviewing information
4
writing an another article
writing
looking for an expert
1
planning a campaign
designing
in a meeting
1
planning and copywriting
designing
having a cigarette
1
planning a campaign
designing
copywriting
2
editing an article
reviewing information
looking for an expert
looking for an expert
planning a presentation
designing
planning a campaign
designing
planning an article
designing
planning and writing an article
writing
lunch
having lunch
meeting
in a meeting
having a cigarette
having a cigarette
copywriting
copywriting
checking text and layout for a campaign
reviewing information
wrote a press release and sent it
sending information
copywriting
copywriting
editing a copy text
reviewing information
editing and proofreading text
reviewing information
Participant TAIK5
Activity
Translated Activity
Unique Activities
Occurrences
searching pictures
searching information
searching information
We were looking for the lost material
searching information
designing
10
I'm doing the layout to the web page
We were discussing about the layout to
the web page
We were designing the layout to the
web page
designing
discussing
10
discussing
e-mailing
2
designing
chatting
1
I was looking for pictures from the net
I'm designing a model for directmarketing mailing
searching information
passing information
1
designing
waiting
1
I was e-mailing about the logo issue
I was lay outing the direct-marketing
add
e-mailing
drawing
1
designing
thinking
1
I was chatting
We were talking about the day's
agenda
I was looking for the background info
from the net
chatting
printing
1
Photoshop crashed, again
designing
Photoshop crashed
I was giving technical instructions to my
colleague
designing
5
discussing
searching information
passing information
138
I was editing the picture
I had to restart my computer because
of the malfunctioning Photoshop
designing
I was looking for pictures
searching information
I was designing envelopes
designing
In the palaver
discussing
In the palaver
discussing
In another palaver
discussing
In the palaver
I was making up the direct-marketing
add
discussing
I was drawing the chart
drawing
In the palaver
discussing
The weekly palaver
discussing
An internal palaver
We were developing the concept for
the mini brochure
discussing
In the planning palaver
discussing
I was writing an e-mail
e-mailing
I was designing the picture
designing
I was trying to print
printing
waiting
designing
thinking
Participant TAIK6
Activity
I was discussing about the phases and
the next steps of the project
I was designing and benchmarking
contents of the web services
Translated Activity
Unique Activities
Occurrences
discussing
discussing
14
designing
designing
6
I had a lunch
We are going through the planned web
service
having lunch
having lunch
1
reviewing information
reviewing information
3
I was designing
We were talking about what we should
do to the next client meeting, and also
about the state of the company
designing
benchmarking
2
discussing
in a meeting
2
Discussing
A phone call from the customer who
was not satisfied with the
communication with a team member
discussing
writing
3
discussing
analyzing
1
Benchmarking
I'm designing a web service and
drawing wire frames
We were discussing about the progress
of the project and layouts we are going
to need
benchmarking
doing nothing significant
1
Designing
designing
A palaver and a brief
A discussion about yesterday's client,
and a short talk about a copy which
another client has [I'm not sure what is
discussing
designing
discussing
discussing
139
meant here]
A discussion about a pitch
In the client meeting in which we went
through the work done to develop a
web service
discussing
benchmarking
I'm writing the summary of the current
state of the client's web services for the
competition.
benchmarking
A work related discussion
I'm making an analysis of the client's
web service
A discussion about the schedule of an
attachment to the bill
discussing
A discussion about a pitch
I'm creating a concept for a
competitive bidding, writing a memo
I'm designing and searching ideas for
layout type
We were discussing about the
alternatives for the cover of a directmarketing add
We went through the user study on
which we should base a extensive
survey in order to develop a web
service
discussing
Nothing significant
doing nothing significant
Fixing the element chart
A planning palaver for the directmarketing add
I'm writing texts for the directmarketing add
reviewing information
A meeting with a client
We went through the technical
implementation, and I commented the
visualization and functionalities
in a meeting
We designed a concept for a campaign
designing
in a meeting
writing
analyzing
discussing
writing
designing
discussing
reviewing information
discussing
writing
discussing
Participant TAIK7
Activity
Translated Activity
Unique Activities
Designing extensions to a web site
designing
designing
Occurrences
3
A bread text to the advertisement
writing
writing
6
Thinking
thinking
thinking
3
Net layout
designing
surfing the web
5
Writing
writing
presenting
1
Net surfing
surfing the web
talking
1
Thinking about the problem
thinking
discussion
1
In the net
surfing the web
having lunch
1
Writing
writing
Designing
designing
140
Presentation
presenting
In the net
surfing the web
In the net
surfing the web
In the net
surfing the web
We were talking
talking
A palaver
discussion
Eating
having lunch
Thinking
thinking
Writing
writing
Writing
writing
Writing
writing
Participant TAIK8
Activity
Translated Activity
Unique Activities
Occurrences
finishing a layout
designing
designing
7
going trough the layouts
designing
looking for inspiration
2
just gathering some inspiration
looking for inspiration
presenting
2
presenting layouts
presenting
reading
1
presenting and creating ideas
presenting | thinking
thinking
4
reading emails
reading
printing
1
designing a greeting card
designing
writing
1
creating
designing
searching information
1
looking for an inspiration
looking for inspiration
reviewing information
1
ideation
thinking
creating a logo
designing
designing a layout for a print
designing
printing layouts
printing
finishing layouts
designing
filling hour report
writing
going trough new work
reviewing information
browsing photos
looking for information
Participant TAIK9
Activity
Monday meeting and planning a pitch
with a colleague
Translated Activity
Unique Activities
Occurrences
in a meeting
in a meeting
planning a project
designing
designing
36
planning and visual designing
designing
interacting
2
planning and visual design
designing
e-mailing
2
visual designing
designing
in a meeting
3
3
141
in interaction with a product company
interacting
researching
2
in interaction with production company
interacting
having lunch
2
planning a pitch
designing
receiving information
1
planning a pitch
designing
searching information
2
visual designing
designing
multitasking
1
planning and briefing
designing
planning pitch
designing
visual designing
designing
visual designing
designing
visual designing
designing
visual design
designing
reading emails
e-mailing
planning a pitch
designing
planning
designing
planning
designing
planning and making time schedules
designing
planning a pitch
designing
planning a pitch and eating my lunch
designing
meeting regarding a project
in a meeting
research for pitch
researching
research and planning a pitch
researching
planning a pitch
designing
planning a pitch -presentation
designing
planning a pitch
designing
designing a website
designing
planning a presentation
designing
planning a pitch
working with too many projects at the
same time
designing
designing a website
designing
having my lunch
having lunch
planning a website
designing
designing a website
designing and planning updates for a
website
planning and designing updates for a
website
designing
planning and designing webpage
designing
planning and designing webpage
designing
designing a website
designing
getting briefed into a new project
receiving information
writing emails
e-mailing
gathering information for a new project
searching information
multitasking
designing
designing
142
planning a website
designing
meeting
in a meeting
planning a website
designing
planning a website
designing
Participant TAIK10
Activity
I was planning a workshop about
commercialization of innovation
Translated Activity
Unique Activities
Occurrences
designing
designing
Activity
Translated Activity
Unique Activities
Outlining and analyzing knowledge
analyzing
analyzing
5
Same as previous
analyzing
observing
3
Observing the user
observing
interviewing
3
Observing and interviewing
observing
reading
3
An interview
interviewing
receiving information
1
Observing and interviewing
I'm reading books and web sites for
material
interviewing
e-mailing
1
reading
talking
1
Analyzing
analyzing
discussing
5
A photograph for a pitch
taking pictures
reviewing information
1
Receiving briefs
receiving information
presenting
1
Writing an internal e-mail
e-mailing
multitasking
1
Trying to read a brief
reading
conflict
1
I was trying to read a brief but the
noise and the phone disturbed me
reading
having lunch
1
I was talking about the brief
talking
taking pictures
1
I was discussing with a coder about
finalizing the functionalities
discussing
writing
2
We went through the comments from
the client and answers to them, we
discussed also about internal problems
reviewing information
thinking
4
I was discussing about the solutions to
the interfaces
discussing
A presentation
presenting
Analyzing
analyzing
Analyzing alone
analyzing
Making a summary
writing
Too much work, has to work alone, no
one to juggle ideas, back hurts.
multitasking
Agreed a palaver
discussion
Briefing
passing information
An arrogant colleague, don't listen to
conflict
3
Participant TAIK11
Occurrences
143
me
A lunch
having lunch
A call to discuss my career in the
company, bad feeling
discussing
A discussion with a colleague
discussing
I'm writing
writing
Ideation
thinking
Preparing a questionnaire
thinking
Ideation of the ideation methods
thinking
Ideation
thinking
144
Appendix M – Post-study questionnaire
Below is a list of questions from the phone survey. If you have something on your mind
concerning the questions, feel free to comment them. All kinds of comments would be appreciated.
Especially, in answering the particular question during the study:
Did you feel that we had missed some answering option?
Did you think that the question should have been open-ended?
Did you have some difficulties in understanding the purpose of the question?
Did you think that the question should have been left out altogether or phrased differently?
Where were you?
- In transit
- Home
- Restaurant/ Bar/ Cafe
- Taivas
- In public space
- Other workplace
- Other
Were you engaged in activities:
- Alone
- With 1 other person
- With 2 or more persons
Who were you with?
- Team member(s)
- Colleague(s) outside my team
- Client(s)
- Boss
- Friend
- Family
- Other
145
What were you doing?
How were you traveling?
- Bus/ Tram/ Train
- Driving
- Bike
- Walking
- Other
Were you traveling alone?
- Yes
- No
Was this a:
- Big idea
- Small idea
Was this idea connected to a client brief?
- Yes
- No
How long have you been working on this idea?
- Just got it
- Not long
- Sometime
- Very long
146
How important were others in creating this idea?
- Essential
- Important
- Somewhat important
- Not that important
Can you capture the situation that led to this idea? /
Can you capture the situation that hindered you?
What was hindering you?
- Person unavailable
- Missing information
- Equipment failure
- Distraction
- Too much work or stress
- Too many tasks at the same time
- Too tired or bad mood
- Other
Were you frustrated?
- Not at all
- A little
- Somewhat
- Very much
Why did you pick this space for your activities?
- It was my normal workspace
- It was near/ available
- Needed bigger space
- Needed presentation/ work tools
- Needed access to information
- Needed more privacy
- Needed to be around others
- Needed a change/ stimuli
147
-
Other
What was the most important spatial quality?
- Quiet
- Peaceful
- Good lighting
- Comfortable furniture
- Nice materials/ colors
- Air quality
- Room temperature
- Other
What tools did you use?
- Projector
- White board
- Wall space
- Work table
- Computer
- Phone
- Pen and paper
- Other
How important was this space for your activities?
- Essential
- Important
- Somewhat important
- Not that important
Was your interaction with others:
- Scheduled
- Accidental
148
In interacting with others were you mostly:
- Providing info
- Somewhat providing
- Somewhat receiving
- Receiving info
How important was this interaction for your current activities?
- Essential
- Important
- Somewhat important
- Not that important
How much was this a productive use of your time?
- Very productive
- Quite productive
- Not much productive
- Not at all productive
How much stress were you experiencing?
- A lot
- Quite a bit
- Not much
- None
If you had done the survey, what would have been the most important question for you to ask?
149
Did your study phone work properly during the study? If not, what kinds of problems did
emerge?
Did you find the survey easy to answer? If not, what were the things you didn’t like?
In what kind of situations you did find answering the survey the most distracting?
What kind of arrangements had made the study more pleasurable? Rank the options (1 = most
important).
___ Less questions
___ More variety to the queries
___ Questions that had been customized for you
___ Technical improvements (better battery life, etc.)
___ Fewer surveys/ day
Do you feel you would participate in this kind of study again?
___ Yes
___ No
150
Appendix N – Participants’ Post-study Questionnaire Answers
Situated Innovations: Workplace
The summary of the feedback from the participants / the questionnaire administered on June
18, 2009 / present 9 of the 11 participants
Below is a list of questions from the phone survey. If you have something on your mind
concerning the questions, feel free to comment them. All kinds of comments would be
appreciated. Especially, in answering the particular question during the study:
Did you feel that we had missed some answering option?
Did you think that the question should have been open-ended?
Did you have some difficulties in understanding the purpose of the question?
Did you think that the question should have been left out altogether or phrased differently?
Questions commented [the ID number of the participant in brackets (i.e. TAIK3 = [3])]
Q00: Where were you?
”Friend’s place” (missing option, [3])
Q01: Were you engaged in activities alone/ with 1 other person/ with 2 or more persons?
“Physically or via chat/ e-mail (would’ve probably been useful knowledge).” *3+
“Were you engaged in activities doesn’t really fit for my type of brainworker since during the
work day I’m always engaged.” *7+
Q02: Who were you with?
“Multiple choices would have worked better.” *2] (Comment by J-P Karinki: the interface in the
mobile phone was designed in a way that first you’ll notice the answering options, after that
you’ll maybe check what the question was… Somehow the instructions “pick all that apply/
scroll down for more options” had stayed unnoticed. See also in other comments below.]
Q03: What were you doing?
“On this kind of question, I think that the answer is way too long to answer, to explain the
context and everything. A *?+ multiple choices could be needed.” *1+
“At first it was unclear whether this question meant the purpose of the doing or the act of
doing itself.” *7+
151
Q07: Was this a big idea/ small idea?
“Quite difficult to tell…” *1+
“How to define big/ small idea? Or idea itself? I felt there were several duties (all creative) that
didn’t fit into this concept/ question.” *4+
Q08: Was this idea connected to a client brief?
“Ideas are born constantly, and they are all generally connected to work.” *9+
Q11/ Q16: Can you capture the situation that led to this idea?/ Can you capture the situation
that hindered you?
“Sometimes it is difficult to define how the idea/ solution was born, although it has been the
important part of the process.” *9+
Q14: What was hindering you?
“More than one choice please!” *1+
Q17: Why did you pick this space for your activities?
“Same here, more choices to select!” *1+
“Because it is the habit, by happenstance, because it was a whimsy, it was there” *missing
options, 6]
Q19: What tools did you use?
“Design books, magazines, etc.” [missing options, 6]
Q20: How important was this space for your activities?
“Quite difficult to define. We need the space to be in somewhere, but… It makes sense in some
occasions.” *6+
“I think that this is not so important question.” *9+
Q23: Was your interaction with others scheduled/ accidental?
“There should be more options. Interaction with colleagues is going on all the time.” *9+
Q24: In interacting with others were you mostly providing info/ receiving info?
“Text box” *2+
152
“I didn’t feel that the question was important. Most of the time it popped up during the
planning sessions.” *5+
“Often it is just a discussion with others.” *9+
Q25: How important was this interaction for your current activities?
“Text box” *2+
Q22: How much stress were you experiencing?
“I think this should always be the 2nd question to ask.” *1+
“This one was too abstract for me. Most of the time I answered none, though I think I was
experiencing stress earlier.” *3+
If you had done the survey, what would have been the most important question for you to
ask?
“How much stress were you experiencing?” *1+
“Sorry, nothing special comes to mind. How about ‘Was the day successful as a whole?’” *9+
Did your study phone work properly during the study? If not, what kinds of problems did
emerge?
“It was always saying that I didn’t complete the survey to the end even when I did.” *1+
“The program slowed down a lot time to time.” *2+
“The program crashed down, keys were difficult/ impossible to lock, short battery life” *3+
“At first, the query popped up in every 5 or 10 minutes, even when I had not changed location
and I had just answered to it. On the last week, I didn’t get any queries at all even though I
changed from space to space.” *4+
“Once the phone got stuck and didn’t stop making the sound that signals the end of time to
complete the survey. It stopped only when I removed the battery. The phone also shut off by
itself even when it was currently recharging.” *5+
“At first it alarmed way too often, at the end it get shutting off. [The program] reacted slowly at
the end.” *6+
“The phone shut off in the nights when it was recharging. At first it alarmed too often, every 5
minutes.” *7+
“The phone shut off by itself although it was recharging. The constant vibrating sound got to my
nerves time to time.” *8+
“My phone has to be changed once.” *9+
153
Did you find the survey easy to answer? If not, what were the things you didn’t like?
“Technical limitations. The short battery life made it very painful.” *3+
“The constant peeping was annoying, especially when the queries didn’t seem to have been
connected to the change of location.” *4+
“At first the survey didn’t work well, the phone peeped although I didn’t move. On the last
week the situation was quite opposite, I didn’t get queried even when I carried the phone with
me:)” *5+
“*The questions popped up+ too frequently and were too repetitive. They were also too limiting,
the lack of possibilities to describe things was frustrating.” *6+
“The size of the phone became challenging, it felt too big to carry around.” *7+
“Not time *to answer+:)” *9+
In what kind of situations you did find answering the survey the most distracting?
“When in the “IDEA” situation.” *1+
“When I had to concentrate.” *2+
“I didn’t felt that it was distracting.” *3+
“When the phone peeped all the time, especially in the palavers.” *4+
“At first the phone peeped very often during the palavers (about every 15 minutes).” *5+
“When with the clients” *6+
“During the thinking process. The sound of the vibration interrupted it unpleasantly.” *7+
“In a hurry” *8+
“In a hurry:)” *9+
What kind of arrangements had made the study more pleasurable? Rank the options (1 =
most important).
Less questions
554245453
More variety to the queries
112322112
Questions that had been customized for you
22343332Technical improvements
33115424Fewer surveys/ day
445511531
Do you feel you would participate in this kind of study again?
Yes
Yes [if it would work properly]
Maybe
?
No
6
1
1
1
-
*Comment, 6: “The idea is good but it is not possible to participate fully because of the lot of
work.”+
154
Appendix O – Phone Survey Diagrams
Survey Version 2
155
Survey Version 3
156
Survey Version 4 – Used in Taivas case study
157
References:
Books:
Andriessen, J.H. E. and Vartiainen M. (Eds.) (2006). “Mobile Virtual Work A New
Paradigm?”
Bercun, S. (2007). “The myths of innovation”
Bundy, W. M. (2002). “Innovation, creativity and discovery in modern organizations”
p.598-697
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). “Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and
Invention”
Dacey, J. S. and Lennon K. H. (1998). “Understanding creativity: The interplay of
biological, psychological and social factors”
Fry, B. (2007). “Visualizing Data: Exploring and Explaining Data with the Processing
Environment”
Gelfand, B. (1989). “The Creative Practitioner: Creative Theory and Method for the
Helping Services” pp.21 - 36
Graham, D. (2004). “Ideation The Birth and Death of Ideas”
Huang A. S. and Rudolph L. (2007). “Bluetooth Essentials for Programmers”
Infield, H. F. (1943). "Sociometry and the Concept of the Moment." Sociometry 6(3) pp.
243-244.
Lilischkis, S. (July 2003). “More Yo-yos, Pendulums and Nomads: Trends of Mobile and
Multi-location Work in the Information Society” Issue Report N. 36
Lilischkis, S. and Meyer I. (July 2003). “Mobile and Multi-location Work in the European
Union – Empirical Evidence from Selected Surveys” Issue Report N. 37
Lynch, K. (1972). “What Time Is This Place?”
Meyer, C. (2004). “Relentless Growth: How Silicon Valley Innovation Strategies Can
Work in Your Business”
Minsky, M. L. (1988). “The society of mind”
Negroponte, N. (1996). “Being digital”
Osborn, A. F. (1957). “Applied Imagination: Principles and procedures of creative
thinking”
Reas, C. and Fry B. (2007). “Processing: A Programming Handbook for Visual Designers
and Artists
Sweezy, P. M. (1943). “Professor Schumpeter's Theory of Innovation”
Vartiainen, M. and Hakonen, M. and Koivisto S. and Mannonen, P. and Manninen, M.P.
and Ruohomäki, V. and Vartola, A. (2007). “Distributed and Mobile Work - Places,
People and Technology”
Sommer, R. (1969). “Personal Space The Behavioral Basis of Design”
Stein, M. (1974). “Stimulating creativity”
158
Journals:
Dumesnil, C. D. (1987). “Office case study: social behavior in relation to the design of the
environment” Journal of architectural and planning research, v 4, n 1, March 1987, pp.713
Hallberg, J. and Nilsson, M. and Synnes, K. (2003). “Positioning with Bluetooth”
Proceedings of ICT 2003. 23 Feb.-1 March 2003, v 2 pp.954-958
Howard, T.J. and Culley, S. J. and Dekoninck, E. (2008) “Describing the creative design
process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature”,
Design Studies, v 29, n 2, March 2008, pp.160-180
Kirsch, S. (1995). "The incredible shrinking world? Technology and the production of
space" Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 13(5): pp.529 – 555
Nasar, J.L. and de Nivia, C. (1987). “A post occupancy evaluation for the design of a light
pre-fabricated housing system for low income groups in Colombia” Journal of
architectural and planning research, v 4, n 3, Sept 1987, pp.199- 211
Raento, M. and Oulasvirta, A. and Eagle, N. (2009). “Smartphones: An Emerging Tool for
Social Scientists” Sociological Methods & Research, v 37, n 3, Feb 2009, pp.426-454
Silvestre, B. S. and Dalcol, P.R. T. (2009). “Geographical proximity and innovation:
Evidences from the Campos Basin oil & gas industrial agglomeration”, Technovation, v
29, n 8, pp.546-561
Weiser, M. (1991). "The Computer for the 21st Century", Scientific American, v 265 n 9,
1991 pp. 66-75
Papers:
Bahl, P. and Padmanabhan, V. N. (2005) “RADAR: An In-Building RF-based User Location
and Tracking System” Microsoft Research
Cheung, K. C. and Intille S. and Larson K. (2007). “An inexpensive Bluetooth-Based
Indoor Positioning Hack” House_n Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cimprich, B. E. (1990). Attentional fatigue and restoration in individuals with cancer.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Eagle, N. and Pentland A. (2006). "Reality Mining: Sensing Complex Social Systems."
Evans, G.W. (2001). Environmental stress and health. In A. Baum, T. Revenson, & J. E.
Singer (Eds.), Handbook of health psychology (pp. 365-385). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Fagerberg, J. (2004). “Innovation: A Guide to the Literature”. in Fagerberg, Jan, David C.
Mowery and Richard R. Nelson. The Oxford Handbook of Innovations. pp. 1–26
Froehlich, J. and Landay, J. and Chen, M. and Consolvo, S. and Harrison, B. and Smith, I.
(2006). “An overview of In Situ Self Report and the MyExperience Tool” Unpublished
Ho, J. and Intille S. (2005). “Using context-aware computing to reduce the perceived
burden of interruptions from mobile devices”, in Proceedings of CHI 2005
Mota, S. (2006). “Ambient Awareness at Home” Doctoral Colloquium , Ubicomp 2006
159
Nardi, B. and Whittaker, S. and Heinrich, S. (2000). “It’s Not What You Know, It’s Who
You Know: Work in the Information Age”. First Monday
Priyantha, N. B. and Chakraborty, A. and Balakrishnan, H. (2000). “The Cricket LocationSupport system”, Proc. 6th ACM MOBICOM, Boston, MA, August 2000.
Shen, Z. and K. Ma (2008). "MobiVis: A Visualization System for Exploring Mobile Data",
IEEE PacificVIS 2008, 175-182.
Tanabe, S. and Nishihara, N. and Haneda, M. (2007) “Indoor temperature, productivity,
and fatigue in office tasks” HVAC & R Research
Thesis:
Blum, M. (2005). Real-time Context Recognition. MIT Media Lab, ETH Zurich.
Cheung, K. C. W. (2007). Understanding behavior with ubiquitous computing for
architectural design. MIT School of Architecture
Gips, J. P. (2006). Social motion: mobile networking through sensing human behavior.
MIT Media Lab
Phillips, M. G. (2207). Design by searching: a system for creating and evaluating complex
architectural assemblies. MIT School of Architecture
Websites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborative_Innovation_Networks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_cognition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Lefebvre#cite_note-9
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation
http://myexperience.wikispaces.com
http://pdadb.net/index.php?m=specs&id=978&c=samsung_sgh-i617_blackjack_ii
http://portal.etsi.org/docbox/ERM/Open/RFIDWorkshop200806/RFID03_06a3_ITU_SPU
_Internet_Of_Things_(IoT)_definition.txt
http://reality.media.mit.edu/publications.php
http://web.mit.edu/caesproject/index.htm
http://wockets.wikispaces.com/
http://www.32feet.net
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/au-24/au24-401.htm
http://www.bluetooth.org/
http://www.expansys-usa.com/
http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/publications/internetofthings/
http://www.vmwork.net/index3.php
160